Hi Gerhard,
syslog has already gone through that.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5424#section-8.6
The issue at hand is how to position XYZ/dtls with respect to the same set
of circumstances. syslog, ipfix and isms will all need to address that
and likely will need to be consistent. As David is saying, syslog/dtls
will be an optional transport and will probably carry the same verbiage as
was written in 8.6 of RFC 5424.
Regards,
Chris
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, Gerhard Muenz wrote:
Hi,
It seems that syslog is struggling with issues IPFIX has already gone
through. It might be worth looking at RFC5101 and the wording in Section
10.3 about IPFIX-over-UDP:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5101#section-10.3.1
Regards,
Gerhard
Hi,
To clarify a point ...
syslog/tls is not simply RECOMMENDED; it is MANDATORY TO IMPLEMENT.
syslog/dtls will be an optional transport; we do not need to RECOMMEND
it.
Implementers can decide for themselves whether to implement it.
I agree that the IESG may not approve it with congestion control
considerations.
dbh
_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
