Tom Petch wrote: > > Tom, can a document just do XYZ/dtls, or does it also _really_ need > > definition for the substrate? > > I can write such a document, but will the IESG accept it? I don't > know; I was surprised at Magnus's DISCUSS two years ago on > syslog-protocol that led us to RECOMMEND a TLS transport, as opposed > to UDP, on the grounds that it offered congestion control and I > doubt that concerns about congestion have decreased since then. > > So I am anticipating that syslog over DTLS with no mention of > underlying transport cannot be RECOMMENDED; perhaps a question for > our AD to ponder, and bounce off his transport area opposite > numbers. > > As to other points, my list, of what xxx-over-DTLS must consider is > - authentication > - connection set up > - connection termination > - choice of ciphersuite > - choice of (D)TLS extensions > - delineation of datagrams > - invoking DTLS > - fragmentation > and nowadays I must add > - congestion control.
About half of these seem to depend on the underlying transport protocol (UDP/DCCP/SCTP/etc.) somehow, so I don't think a generic XYZ-over-DTLS-over-anything document is really possible. (But naturally e.g. both UDP and SCTP could be covered in the same document, so this doesn't have to lead to explosion in the number of internet-drafts...:-) Best regards, Pasi _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
