I agree with Tom that a TCP document would be useful and probably needed. Before someone from Huawei comes along and tries to patent this, too, I volunteer to write this document...
Rainer > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Petch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 10:13 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Syslog] stream transport > wasdraft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt > > I think that this document has some way to go. It has > introduced, and woven > together, both TLS and TCP transport, which I think wrong. > Ideally, I think > that we should have two separate documents, one dealing with > TLS, the other with > TCP issues; given that both would be short, it is probably > sensible to have only > the one, but I still see the need for separation within the > document. After > all, DTLS exists: an outsider could, should, think that > syslog is UDP-based, > DTLS provides UDP security so DTLS is the obvious choice, > what on earth is this > document talking about? We need a section on DTLS (if only > justifying why it is > not for further consideration). And, for me, that alone > justifies teasing out > the TLS issues from the TCP issues; is FRAME-LEN needed over DTLS?. > > That said, I do not think that this document adequately > covers the TCP issues, > ones that have surfaced on the list before. > > TLSoTCP can deliver one syslog message, many syslog messages, > part of a syslog > message or a combination thereof - it is in the nature of a > stream protocol. > This needs spelling out. > > A TCP connection takes time to set up, TLSoTCP longer. This > needs spelling out; > if timely delivery is a concern, then the connection should > be established in > advance. > > The section on TCP termination is too weak. If we are > recommending a timeout, > then we should recommend a value, even specifying that it > should be configurable > over a range. And if we cannot agree on such values, I do > not think we should > be specifying a timeout. > > TCP perforce introduces flow control. This will slow down > and rate limit > messages; what is the impact of this on the application? > > TCP failures can terminate the connection! Again, this has > an impact on the > application with the time taken to become aware that the > connection has failed. > > Tom Petch > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David B Harrington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 4:26 PM > Subject: [Syslog] draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt > > > Hi, > > A new revision of the syslog/TLS draft is available. > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01 > .txt > > We need reviewers. > Can we get > 1) a person to check the grammar? > 2) a person to check the syslog technical parts? > 3) a person to check compatibility with the other WG documents? > 4) a person to check the TLS technical parts? > > We also need general reviews of the document by multiple people. > > Thanks, > David Harrington > co-chair, Syslog WG > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _______________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
