Hi Sean,
Many thanks for this review. I'm going to ask Joe to _not_ incorporate
these changes at this time as they are editorial. Joe can make the
changes if the IESG asks for other changes, or during AUTH48.
One comment in-line below.
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Sean Turner wrote:
Here are some comments on draft-ietf-syslog-dtls-02. All are nits.
1. Introduction:
r/with TLS security [RFC5246]/with TLS [RFC5246]
r/syslog Message/syslog message
Upon first reading of the last paragraph, I was trying to figure out how I
was going to use syslog/DTLS/UDP/DCCP. Can we use "in preference to" for
"over" in the last sentence (or something other than "over"):
OLD:
If an operator has the choice of the two, it is recommended to use syslog
over DTLS over DCCP.
NEW:
If an operator has the choice of the two, it is RECOMMENDED to use syslog
over DTLS in preference to syslog over DCCP.
I like the wording. I'm going to say to keep the "recommended" as
lowercase since it's not a directive for the protocol but a recommendation
for deployment.
All the rest are good catches.
Thanks,
Chris
2. Terminology
To align with the DTLS client definition:
OLD:
A "DTLS server" is an application that can receive a Client Hello from a
client and reply with a Server Hello.
NEW:
A "DTLS server" is an application that can receive a DTLS Client Hello from a
client and reply with a DTLS Server Hello.
4. Using DTLS to Secure Syslog
r/Denial of Service attacks/Denial of Service attacks.
5.4.1 Message Size
r/each DTLS record must fit within a single DTLS datagram/each DTLS record
MUST fit within a single DTLS datagram
spt
_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
