Hi all, sorry I was offline a long time for good, but not to mention here, reason. I will unfortunately be very partly available in the next few days. But I would at least like to back Tom's argument. Bit first let me admit that I could not follow the whole discussion, so I may have missed a point that actually demands a MUST. Out of the context of Tom's posting, I don't think so.
In practice, there are some applications that require more than 16KB within a single message, namely IHE and maybe some other applications that log application-data rather than system management data. In RFC5424, we thought we have a good compromise by specifying a not-too-large to be supported size but did not set an upper limit. This was done in the spirit that transports should not impose any limits except if absolutely necessary. So if dtls can work with 64K (and my understanding is it can), we should permit it to use this max size. If that comes, for example, at the cost of fragmentation and potential message loss, so be it for those applications that need this functionality. After all, folks have been warnend (RFC5424), but we should not limit those in need AND ready to accept the extra risk. Speaking as an implementer, I know for sure that if some large-enough customer approaches us to support 64K messages, we will definitely do that, if it is possible. I guess the same is true for other implementers. If the customer needs it and wants to pay for it, one will implement it -- then as a private extension of the standard. So looking at the real world, removing that ability from the standard will not result in removing the capability. The only thing that it will potentially remove is interoperability of different implementations that do it anyways... My 2cts, and once again my apologies for not being able to follow more timely. Rainer > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of t.petch > Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 6:38 PM > To: [email protected]; Chris Lonvick > Cc: syslog > Subject: [Syslog] AD review discuss/comments for draft-ietf-syslog-dtls > > I see that this I-D had entered 'Revised I-D needed' which I would like > to > progress. > > I see several comments about maximum record size, including a > suggestion that we > should make the 'SHOULD NOT' a 'MUST NOT' exceed 2**14. > > I am dead set against this change. We had a clear requirment, early > on, to > allow 65k messages, and I think it wrong to MUST NOT that requirement. > The text > in the other I-Ds is a compromise to strke a balance between this and > having > everything fit in 576 byte; I think we have the balance right. > > Tom Petch > > _______________________________________________ > Syslog mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
