Hi Folks,
How about this:
- We leave Section 5 just as it is:
CURRENT:
DTLS can run over multiple transports. Implementations of this
specification MUST support DTLS over UDP and SHOULD support DTLS over
DCCP [RFC5238]. Transports, such as UDP or DCCP do not provide
session multiplexing and session-demultiplexing. In such cases, the
application implementer provides this functionality by mapping a
unique combination of the remote address, remote port number, local
address and local port number to a session.
- We modify Section 6 as follows:
CURRENT:
DCCP has congestion control. For this reason the syslog over DTLS
over DCCP option is recommended in preference to the syslog over the
DTLS over UDP option. Implementations of syslog over DTLS over DCCP
MUST support CCID 3 and SHOULD support CCID 2 to ensure
interoperability.
PROPOSED:
DCCP has congestion control but is not widely deployed at the time of
this writing. Since it does have congestion control, whereas UDP does
not, syslog over DTLS over DCCP is recommended in preference to the
syslog over DTLS over UDP. Implementations of syslog over DTLS over
DCCP MUST support CCID 3 and SHOULD support CCID 2 to ensure
interoperability.
Please get your comments in quickly as we'd like to close this out.
Thanks,
Chris
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010, Joseph Salowey (jsalowey) wrote:
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
