Hi Robert, I think I should have been more clear. I meant a note along these lines (and only these lines, without any more specifics).
### It should be noted that this transport does not use application-level acknowledgments. As such, there exists situations where loss of data may occur. This protocol is not suitable if a 100% reliable solution is desired. ### ... nothing more. I often need to talk to people (sales but unfortunately technical folks, too) that claim that their implementation is reliable just because it is based on TCP. While for some one can assume they know better, at least some do not even know there actually is a problem. I'd like to make the later aware of the fact. And for the first sort of folks, it would be very handy to have a good reference that they are wrong ;) Rainer > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 12:46 PM > To: Rainer Gerhards > Cc: Joseph Salowey (jsalowey); syslog; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Syslog] Subject Name verification policy > > I agree with Rainer that those fixes would make it good enough. > > [Rainer] > > It may also be useful (but not vital) to include a note that > > transport-tls is a secure, but not a 100% reliable protocol (because > tcp > > without an app-layer ack is unreliable). Lots of folks have the > > misconception that just because tcp is used it is reliable. For that, > > one needs to implement rfc 3195. But, again, this is not a important > > enough point to hold publishing. > > > > I worry that getting into the reliability discussion will delay things. > The reliability discussion is more a tutorial about the limitations of > TCP > and is not syslog specific. It comes up because syslog users react > very > negatively to the work "unreliable" in UDP and become concerned. > > If a reliability note is included, it would help to indicate that TCP > provides protection against some forms of data loss, such as network > congestion and data corruption related message loss but not against all > forms of loss. The most common form of data loss with TCP involves > mobile > equipment. If I disconnect a machine from the network without warning, > move it, and relocate it to somewhere that assigns it a new IP address, > all the active TCP/IPv4 connections are lost. A syslog-tls that was > using > one of these connections may, depending on details of timing and > implementation, suffer undetected data loss. TCP/IPv6 can be > configured > to reduce or even eliminate this source of data loss, but other lower > probability sources of loss remain. > > All of this discussion would really be advanced education on the error > recovery capabilities of TCP and is not syslog specific in any way. > > R Horn _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
