How about
"Implementations of this
specification MUST support DTLS over UDP and MUST support the DTLS
over
DCCP [RFC5238] features of this specification."
I'm not sure what else is necessary, but there are only two DCCP
things mentioned in this spec - the CCIDs and SYSL service name. The
CCID text is already written using RFC2119 language.
dbh
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joseph Salowey (jsalowey) [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 12:39 PM
> To: David Harrington; Chris Lonvick (clonvick); [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [Syslog] Status of syslog/dtls ISSUES
>
> 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
