----- Original Message ----- From: "Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <[email protected]> To: "Sean Turner" <[email protected]>; "Chris Lonvick (clonvick)" <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 5:02 PM
> Anybody on the list have objection to adding the Chris' suggested text > and the DCCP service code SYLG? I see SYSL used as a four character code for syslog in other settings and would prefer that. Else, following the principle of dropping vowels, SSLG, but I think that not as good. Tom Petch > Thanks, > > Joe > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sean Turner [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 3:55 PM > > To: Joseph Salowey (jsalowey); Chris Lonvick (clonvick) > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [Syslog] AD review comments for draft-ietf-syslog-dtls > > > > I'm fine with either. Regardless, the IANA considerations section > needs > > to be updated to register the service code - unless some other > document > > that I don't know about already did. Notes for the registration can > be > > found here: > > http://www.iana.org/assignments/service-codes/service-codes.xhtml > > > > But, all that I think is needed is some text asking IANA to register > the > > following DCCP service code: > > > > 1398361159 SYLG SYSLOG Protocol [TBD] > > > > spt > > > > Joseph Salowey (jsalowey) wrote: > > > Hi Chris, > > > > > > CCID 3 looks good to me, I'm OK with the text. > > > > > > We could just use the port number, 6514, as the service code. Since > the > > > service identifier applies to more than DCCP, it probably makes more > > > sense the follow the scheme defined in RFC4340 where a 4 letter > string > > > is used as the service identifier, such as the following: > > > > > > SC:SYLG > > > SC=x53594C47 > > > SC=1398361159 > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Joe > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > > > Behalf > > >> Of Chris Lonvick (clonvick) > > >> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 6:40 AM > > >> To: [email protected] > > >> Subject: Re: [Syslog] AD review comments for draft-ietf-syslog-dtls > > >> > > >> Hi Folks, > > >> > > >> I'll suggest CCID 3 because that's my lucky number. ;-) > > >> > > >> Seriously, here is a relevant point from RFC 5238: > > >> ===vvv=== > > >> In addition to the retransmission issues, if the throughput > needs > > > of > > >> the actual application data differ from the needs of the DTLS > > >> handshake, it is possible that the handshake transference could > > > leave > > >> the DCCP congestion control in a state that is not immediately > > >> suitable for the application data that will follow. For > example, > > >> DCCP Congestion Control Identifier (CCID) 2 ([RFC4341]) > congestion > > >> control uses an Additive Increase Multiplicative Decrease > (AIMD) > > >> algorithm similar to TCP congestion control. If it is used, > then > > > it > > >> is possible that transference of a large handshake could cause > a > > >> multiplicative decrease that would not have happened with the > > >> application data. The application might then be throttled > while > > >> waiting for additive increase to return throughput to > acceptable > > >> levels. > > >> > > >> Applications where this might be a problem should consider > using > > > DCCP > > >> CCID 3 ([RFC4342]). CCID 3 implements TCP-Friendly Rate > Control > > >> (TFRC, [RFC3448])). TFRC varies the allowed throughput more > > > slowly > > >> than AIMD and might avoid the discontinuities possible with > CCID > > > 2. > > >> ===^^^=== > > >> > > >> My reasoning for choosing CCID 3 is that when some devices start up > > > they > > >> will queue up syslog messages until the network is up, and then > they > > > will > > >> start to deliver them. I don't want a large handshake to throttle > > > that > > >> initial burst of messages. (Please challenge this assumption if > you > > > have > > >> a better understanding of the process.) > > >> > > >> I'll suggest that the specific wording will need to be: "MUST > > > implement > > >> CCID 3 and SHOULD implement CCID 2 to ensure interoperability". > Does > > > that > > >> sound OK to everyone? > > >> > > >> > > >> Joe: can you look at Sean's second question and let us know about > > > that? > > >> Thanks, > > >> Chris > > >> > > >> On Thu, 8 Apr 2010, Sean Turner wrote: > > >> > > >>> I have one major comment and it relates to DCCP: > > >>> > > >>> The DCCP chairs tell me that to specify the use of DCCP the ID > needs > > > to > > >>> decide which CCID it will use (CCID 2 is AIMD and CCID 3 is TFRC). > > > I > > >> was > > >>> hoping that the DTLS over DCCP RFC addressed this, but that RFC > > > doesn't > > >> pick > > >>> one it leaves this choice to the "application". > > >>> > > >>> Can you also confirm that the Port # is used as the DCCP service > > > code? > > >>> spt > _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
