<inline> Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sam Hartman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 8:08 PM Subject: [Syslog] Implications of protocol draft changes for tls draft > > > Greetings. Other than the issue I pointed out today, it looks like > we're done with protocol and transport-udp. Once that issue is > resolved I can approve both of these documents and send them to the > rfc-editor. > > However, in your discussions with the transport area directors you > made some changes to the protocol document that have implications for > the tls document. Curently, the tls document is awaiting revisions to > address my latest round of comments. I'd like the working group to > think about the implications of changes to protocol when revising the > tls document. > > In particular, you are now recommending that the tls transport be used > in most situations in preference to the udp transport. As a > consequence, that means the tls transport is no longer just for > security sensitive applications. So, the TLS document needs to > reflect this wider applicability. > > In particular, I definitely expect it to work in cases where senders > do not have certificates. The working group also needs to think about > delployment issues surrounding trust anchors. You need to either > convince yourselves that getting appropriate trust anchors onto > devices will not be a problem in these situations or provide > mandatory-to-implmenet semantics when trust anchors cannot be > provided. >
The timing seems unfortunate. I saw a trust anchor BOF proposed in Chicago so in a year or two's time, we could piggy back someone else's work. As of now, this could be a struggle. Tom Petch _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
