What text would you suggest?
> -----Original Message----- > From: David Harrington [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 8:46 AM > To: Joseph Salowey (jsalowey); Chris Lonvick (clonvick); [email protected] > Subject: RE: [Syslog] Status of syslog/dtls ISSUES > > 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
