On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 08:19:31PM +0100, tom.petch wrote: > > You do not have to 'criticize' SYSLOG over TLS/TCP - there will be > > situations where there simply is no TCP, see 6lowpan et al. The best > > thing is to concentrate on defining how SYSLOG over DTLS works and to > > leave out any discussion about 'shortcomings' of TLS/TCP or how to > > choose the best SYSLOG transport for a given network for future > > documents. > > I see many I-Ds criticised for failing to say why they should exist. > The limitations of TCP and the attractions of UDP justify this I-D > so I regard those preliminary paragraphs as a necessary part of this > I-D. Ir might be called an applicability statement.
Good luck with spelling out the "limitations of TCP" in a way that does not look hand waving and passes the reviews without triggering nasty questions. Leave the discussion which transport to choose in which situation to a future SYSLOG applicability statement document. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
