John, I need to find it inside the mailing list archive. If I remember, it came up during rechartering (2? 3? Years ago). It was along the lines that a secure transport AND secure default for that transport are required. This is the primary reason that -syslog-protocol and -transport-udp can not advance to RFC before -transport-tls is done.
Rainer > -----Original Message----- > From: Moehrke, John (GE Healthcare) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 6:18 PM > To: Rainer Gerhards; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Joseph Salowey (jsalowey); > [email protected] > Subject: RE: [Syslog] I-D Action:draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-12.txt > > > Could someone please point me at the mentioned IESG requirement to > include policy decisions? This is a very unusual position. And as your > own assessment shows is something that simply will not scale. > > For example, there are healthcare systems installed on military ships > where all network wiring is inside compressed nitrogen casings with > sensors. This is clearly a sensitive environment, but they have already > managed many of the risks. > > John > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf > > Of Rainer Gerhards > > Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 3:36 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Joseph Salowey (jsalowey); [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [Syslog] I-D > Action:draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-12.txt > > > > Hi all, > > > > I agree to Robert, policy decisions need to be separated. I CC Pasi > > because my comment is directly related to IESG requirements, which > IMHO > > cannot be delivered by *any* syslog TLS document without compromise > > [comments directly related to IESG are somewhat later, I need to > level > > ground first]. _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
