On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 02:14:06PM -0700, Chris Lonvick wrote:
> How about the following:
>
> syslog senders MUST NOT disable UDP checksums. syslog senders SHOULD
> use UDP checksums when sending messages over IPv4. syslog senders MUST
> use UDP checksums when sending messages over IPv6.
The last sentence is a bit like requiring that the IPv6 implementation
your code happens to run on MUST be correct (and I have no clue how to
turn this requirement into syslog code).
> syslog receivers should be lenient in what they receive. IPv4
> receivers SHOULD check the UDP checksums. They SHOULD accept a
> syslog message with a zero checksum. They MAY discard messages
> with invalid checksums, or they MAY accept them and attempt to process
> them. IPv6 receivers MUST check the UDP checksums and MUST discard UDP
> packets containing a zero checksum.
I am not sure the MAY discard or MAY accept sentence is needed.
My proposal would be:
syslog senders MUST NOT disable UDP checksums. IPv4 syslog
senders SHOULD use UDP checksums when sending messages. Note that
RFC 2460 [RFC2460] mandates the use of UDP checksums when sending
UDP datagrams over IPv6.
syslog receivers MUST NOT disable UDP checksum checks. IPv4 syslog
receivers SHOULD check UDP checksums and they SHOULD accept a
syslog message with a zero checksum. Note that RFC 2460 [RFC2460]
mandates the use of checksums for UDP over IPv6.
By simply refering to the IPv6 requirement for UDP checksums, we avoid
making this also a syslog requirement. I think we should not use MUST
language for something that can only be implemented correctly below
the syslog software layer.
[Enough hair splitting for today. ;-]
/js
--
Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
Syslog@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
