Hi Miao,
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006, Miao Fuyou wrote:
Hi,
Unfortunately (or fortunately), there are several issues raised after the
chair start shepherding process. As the editor, I would like close the
issues as soon as possible, and get the doucment updated.
1, Version. The wg seems have concensus on removing version from the
transport mapping this time. If there is a objection, please reply. If no, I
would remove it.
Please remove the version. We have consensus to do this. Tom Petch does
raise an important point that I will bring up to our ADs. Essentially,
TLS does not have any mechanism to allow for an indication of the contents
that it is protecting. This results in the need for separate ports for
implementations of foo/TLS and bar/TLS, even to the point of foo.v2/TLS
needs a different port from foo.v1/TLS. Both IPsec and SSH (as examples
of other secure transports) are able to embed an indication of the payload
within the transport protocol and reuse their ports. To that end, even
the byte-count is a bit of a problem, but we'll live with that.
Remove Section 6.2 as well.
2, RFC3164. There is a proposal to remove RFC3164 support from the draft. I
tend to accept the proposal. Please comment if you have a different idea!
Go ahead and remove that reference.
3, Ciphersuite. Tom proposed to specify cipher suite in the transport
document, but I still don't find necessity to do so. I tend to agree to
Rainer's proposal:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/syslog/current/msg01305.html
In addition to that
- reference the latest TLS RFC and note that there are updates to that
which need to be considered
- note that the latest ciphers and their relative strengths may be
found in BCP86
- note that implementors and deployers should keep aware of current
literature
(This should be about 3 sentences.)
4, ABNF issues. I will change " " format back to %d format.
OK
5, Receiver authentication when confidentiality is concern, from "MUST" to
"must", and probably some more sentences about receiver authentication is
required.
OK
Please make these changes and submit -05 so we can submit this to the
IESG.
Thanks,
Chris
Please feedback if you have different ideas to the proposals above! Thanks!
Regards,
Miao
_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
