accept that SSL dominates).
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: Rodney Thayer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 11:46 PM
Subject: Re: Why not TLS was Re: [Syslog] Secure substrate - need your input
Tom Petch wrote:
In the context of isms, ie
Hi,
As this WG struggles with the question of which secure transport to use, I
recommend reading RFC3535 - Overview of the 2002 IAB Network Management
Workshop.
This workshop, a world tour of ISP organizations, and the survey of which
Tom speaks were part of an effort by the IAB and the OM Area
There is a miss understanding of the information I have seen given by
many people on this list regarding TLS. I think this miss understanding
is also being applied to SSH.
Most people get the facts right on server-side-authentication. SSL for
years supported Server side authentication. This
, 2005 1:44 PM
To: Tom Petch; Moehrke, John (GE Healthcare); [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Why not TLS was Re: [Syslog] Secure substrate - need your
input
TLS does support mutual node authentication. The healthcare
world has been using mutual-node-authenticated-TLS for over
three years. We use
Original Message -
From: Chris Lonvick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 3:04 PM
Subject: [Syslog] Secure substrate - need your input
I'll be asking this in Vancouver but would like to get some input from the
mailing list.
Our charter says
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
1) What secure substrate should the WG look towards:
__ ssl
__ ssh
__ dtls
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rescorla-dtls-05.txt
__ other
I believe it should be SSL 3.0 / TLS 1.0.
I agree and for all the
I see that there is a lot of work around SSH connection
protocol and its potential use in new protocols. I have not
followed these developments. There must have been a good
reason for it. I would like to understand why people object
to SSL, which is a well established technology. Any
]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 5:10 PM
Subject: RE: [Syslog] Secure substrate - need your input
Hi Folks,
I'll be asking this in Vancouver but would like to get some
input from the mailing list.
Our charter says that we will develop a secure method to
transport syslog
Hi Folks,
I'll be asking this in Vancouver but would like to get some input from the
mailing list.
Our charter says that we will develop a secure method to transport syslog
messages. We have BEEP (RFC 3195) but it has a low implementation record.
Other groups have specified BEEP as well
