Renair wrote, on a reply of a earlier posting of me.
>> In the context of -sign, this is NO issue at all,[...] However, in
>> the light of -international, things are quite different.
> But I think you did not get the spirit of my post. I can see this
> because you snipped out the most important part. [...] reads as follows:
I'm sorry, to give that impression. I used the ``[ ... ] '' notation to
shorted the quote. That part IS important.
In short: For security, crypto is needed. That is what -sign is about.
To make that work, a reboot counter can be used. But the security
doesn't depend on that counter.
Similar, a reboot-counter can be used "to make -international work".
However, when implementing (or even reading) the rfc's two kind of
reboot-counters can lead to misunderstanding. Therefor, I suggest (to
both authors of both drafts) to use different words.
Just to give the authors a hint:
For -sign, which basically add the concept of "secure sessions", the
term "session-number" can be used.
For -international, (which draft I not familiar with,) a term as
"fragment-counter" can possible be used.
Hope this helps, and clearifies.
Note to the WG:
On a private discussion about syslog, we (Renair and me) agree we agree
on most issues. So please don't misread our discussion!
--ALbert Mietus
Send prive mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Send business mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Don't send SPAM!
--
--ALbert Mietus
Send prive mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Send business mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Don't send SPAM!
