Hi Rainer, Thanks for our comments, in-line,
Regards, Miao > -----Original Message----- > From: Rainer Gerhards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 12:24 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Syslog] transport-tls-11 review > > Hi all, > > I reviewed tls-11 today. Some notes: > > Section 1.1: shouldn't it simply refer to -protocol for terms > defined there? I think it makes it more consistent. Agree, so we should only leave "TLS client" and "TLS server" to be define in Syslog/TLS darft, right? > > Section 4.2: > > === > Authentication in > this specification means that the recipient of a certificate must > actually validate the certificate rather than just accept a > certificate. > === > > Is this "must" intentionally in lower case? If so, is this plausible? Yes, intentionally. > > > Section 4.3.1: typo "tranport" OK > Section 5.1: > > === > The server MUST be implemented to support certificate and certificate > generation, > === > > I do not think it is a MUST that a server must contain code > to generate certificates. This should be left to the > implementation. There is already the requirement to use > certificates, so IMHO it is not the business of an IETF > document to specify how they are provided. For example, I > would provide a helper app with my syslog implementations, > but not include it in the core app - it doesn't belong there. > Need more opinion from the working group. > > ---- > > Other than that, I find the draft is quite acceptable. > > Rainer > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
