----- Original Message ----- From: "Sean Turner" <[email protected]> To: "t.petch" <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]>; "Chris Lonvick" <[email protected]>; "syslog" <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2010 5:16 PM Subject: Re: [Syslog] AD review discuss/comments for draft-ietf-syslog-dtls
> t.petch wrote: > > 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, > > My response to Alexey was that this I-D borrows that particular > requirement from RFC4347 and that this I-D shouldn't be upping the > requirement. If it's okay with you, I'll forward him your response. > The way I read his comment was that he's just asking why - he's not > really requesting a change. Sean Right, but after Alexey's comment there was one from Joe saying "let's make this change it seems reasonable", so my reaction was, no, this is not reasonable! We may want to tinker with the text, but a "MUST NOT exceed 2**14" I see as going too far. Tom Petch > spt _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
