Hi, The proposed text is: "Implementations of this specification MUST support DTLS over UDP and MUST support DTLS over DCCP [RFC5238] if the DCCP transport is available at run-time."
So if I am an implementer, and I have no idea whether my customers will have DCCP available at runtime, MUST I implement those DCCP-related things that are specified in this document? Even if I see no customer demand for DCCP, and assume it will NOT be available at runtime, MUST my implementation support the service code SYLG? If I don't implement support for this, and the customer DOES NOT have DCCP at runtime, is my implementation compliant to this spec? If I don't implement support for this, and the customer DOES have DCCP at runtime, is my implementation still compliant to this spec? dbh > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joseph Salowey > (jsalowey) > Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 1:09 AM > To: Chris Lonvick (clonvick); [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Syslog] Status of syslog/dtls ISSUES > > Most of this looks pretty straight forward: > > Issue 8 - Tim Polk DISCUSS > > STATUS: Discussed by Tom and David. Joe to incorporate changes. > > > [Joe] For this one I have Section 5 as: > > "Implementations of this > specification MUST support DTLS over UDP and MUST support DTLS over > DCCP [RFC5238] if the DCCP transport is available at run-time." > > And section 6 as: > > " DCCP has congestion control. For this reason, when DCCP is > available, the syslog over DTLS over DCCP option is RECOMMENDED in > preference to the syslog over the DTLS over UDP option." > > I'm think the RECOMMENDED in the section 6 needs to be > replaced with something else, I'm not quite sure what. > > > Issue 9, 9a, and 9b - from a Tim Polk COMMENT > > STATUS: It looks like 9 and 9a have been discussed and Tom has > proposed > > text to resolve them. Sean proposed text on 9b. I'd like some > discussion > > on that. > > > [Joe] I'm not sure 9b is necessary, but I don't think it causes harm. > I'd modify the text to say " implementations often generate > their own key pairs" since its possible for the generation to > be done outside the implementation. > > > Issue 10 - Jari Arrko DISCUSS > > STATUS: Same as Issue 1. Is the text proposed by Sean good to cover > all > > of this Issue, Issue 1 and Issue 2? > > > [Joe] I incorporated the text, I'm not sure it covers all the > issues, I think Tom initiated some discussion on the TLS > list, but I don't think it changes the result. > > _______________________________________________ > Syslog mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog > _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
