It doesn't. And you can be explicit about that if you want. dbh
> -----Original Message----- > From: Joseph Salowey (jsalowey) [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 6:26 PM > To: David Harrington; Chris Lonvick (clonvick); [email protected] > Subject: RE: [Syslog] Status of syslog/dtls ISSUES > > I think DCCP features isn't really much clearer. Perhaps the > following would be better, > > "Implementations of this specification MUST support DTLS over > UDP and MUST support the DTLS over DCCP [RFC5238] CCIDs and > service name specified in this document." > > This still seems to mandate a DCCP implementation to be compliant with > the spec. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: David Harrington [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 2:22 PM > > To: Joseph Salowey (jsalowey); Chris Lonvick (clonvick); > [email protected] > > Subject: RE: [Syslog] Status of syslog/dtls ISSUES > > > > 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
