I can't make sense of this. Using DCCP has nothing to do with strong security so I presume that dbh is really referring to flow control and saying because flow control may be an issue, everyone MUST implement DCCP (which means that a whole load of RFC are invalid because they require UDP and do not require DCCP!).
I see this as issue 8, for which I see the resolution as DCCP is better than UDP and SHOULD be used when it is available (which I do not expect it to be). I do not think that we should go beyond that. Where for example is MUST implement of DTLS/DCCP in the latest SNMP transport document, draft-ietf-isms-dtls-tm with which dbh has been heavily involved? Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Lonvick" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 5:21 PM Subject: [Syslog] Issue 13 - DCCP? > Issue 13 - DCCP? > > Tom Petch wrote: > vvv > Another issue that came up from the IESG is the relative roles of UDP and > DCCP as a substrate. In this context, the discussions on tsvwg which Lars > is steering about SCTP, DCCP and UDP make interesting reading, with some > contributors asserting that the only way to get a packet through a complex > network is with UDP, that SCTP and DCCP are (comparative) failures that > just don't get recognised widely enough. > > Certainly my (limited) view is that UDP is the MUST HAVE, the one that > will give maximum interoperability so while DCCP is technically superior, > making it the MUST implement will simply cause this I-D to be ignored by > most. > > I haven't seen any response from Lars on this issue. > ^^^ > > DBH responded: > vvv > Lars provided advice quite a while back. I concur with his advice. > > Implementers MUST implement support for DCCP (which should require > minimal changes from support for UDP), > so that if DCCP is available, and the operator chooses to use DCCPP, > the implementation will work with DCCP. > > I view this as very similar to our standard security posture - stroing > security is MUST implement, so it is available if the operator wants > it. The operator is not required to use it. > ^^^ > > ACTION: None - I think this is resolved. > > _______________________________________________ > Syslog mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
