Tom, > -----Original Message----- > From: tom.petch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 12:18 PM > To: Chris Lonvick; Miao Fuyou > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: TLS RFC was Re: [Syslog] Towards closure of syslog-tls issues > > The latest TLS RFC is RFC4346 which is amended by RFC4366, RFC4680 and > RFC4681 > as rfc-index states; the last does not include RFC4507, which I would. > > However, the TLS WG is working on draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis which > changes the > PRF (away from MD5) inter alia and calls it TLS v1.2. IMO, that I-D is > too far > away from completion to be worth waiting for but, in the sentence that > notes > > "that implementors and deployers should keep aware of current > literature" > > I would include a reference to include ongoing work in the IETF on TLS.
I am not sure here, but I think any reference to ongoing work will put the I-D to a hold. The reasoning is that any draft expires and after at most 6 month there is nothing left that could be referenced. If I am right with this opinion, I consider it better not to mention any specific effort. I also think that the text Miao proposed should be sufficiently enough to alert an implementor (and operator) to watch for further references. Just my 2 cts... Rainer > > Tom Petch > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chris Lonvick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Miao Fuyou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 11:05 PM > Subject: Re: [Syslog] Towards closure of syslog-tls issues > > > > 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 > Syslog@lists.ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
