Hi David, thanks for the advise, I will do as suggested. I am currently thinking about the framing used inside the session. Once ready, I will publish it on my website and send a link to the WG. I would appreciate, though, some feedback on the overall picture based on what I currently have:
http://www.syslog.cc/ietf/drafts/draft-ietf-syslog-transport-ssh-00pre.t xt Thanks, Rainer > -----Original Message----- > From: David Harrington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 6:22 PM > To: Rainer Gerhards; 'Chris Lonvick' > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Syslog] IESG secure transport requirement can > be quicklysolved... > > Hi Rainer, > > The deadline for a -00- draft has just passed, so you won't be able to > publish officially until after Montreal. I recommend posting the draft > to the mailing list for discussion, as a non-WG draft. > > By the time the I-D publication process re-opens after montreal, the > WG can decide whether to have you publish as an individual or WG > draft. > > David Harrington > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Rainer Gerhards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 11:09 AM > > To: David Harrington; Chris Lonvick > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: [Syslog] IESG secure transport requirement can > > be quicklysolved... > > > > David, WG, > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: David Harrington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > [snip] > > > > > It is important that we make progress and not just discuss the > > > alternatives, ad infinitum, however. We need volunteers who are > > > willing to put in the work to write viable internet-drafts and > drive > > > them to completion, or the discussions are largely useless. > > > > > > So, I will make these requests to help focus the discussions: > > > 1) please indicate which secure transports you consider to be > > > feasible, > > > > -transport-ssh, rfc3195bis, [-transport-tls] > > > > > 2) please indicate which secure transports address which syslog > > > threats (they're listed in syslog/tls), > > > > section 2 of -transport-tls, IMHO, applies to all three > > > > > 3) please indicate which secure transport you volunteer to write a > > > draft for, and > > > > I have acutally "written" (copy&paste plus a few sentences) > something > > that could be a starting point for -transport-ssh: > > > > http://www.syslog.cc/ietf/drafts/draft-ietf-syslog-transport-s > sh-00pre.t > > xt > > > > If it is WG consensus, I can submit this as an WG document. > > The current > > version describes the overall picture plus a weak idea of framing > and > > transmission (sections 4, 5, and 6). This idea was taken from the > > current discussion on -transport-tls. However, I consider it > > to be very > > insufficient and have made no attempt to specify it in depth. If we > > adopt this document, I would further investigate how a proper > framing > > would look like. I have on my mind to borrough some ideas > > from netconf, > > but use them in the simple spirit of syslog (e.g. we might > > use the same > > opening with a syslog-reserved URI, if the netconf-WG does not > object > > against this, but it is too early to discuss such issues). > > > > I would also volunteer to update 3195 to 3195bis, if their original > > authors are not available for that. I expect to need some help on > the > > XML schema when doing so. As I have already written, I expect > > this to be > > an extremely easy and quick task. My summary in the other mail was > > concluding. There is no need for any additional edits. > > > > > 4) please indicate which secure transport you would commit to > > > implement in your products (and do you have the decision-making > > > authority to commit what gets implemented in shipping products?). > > > > With a very high probability, we would implement > > -transport-ssh and with > > a somewhat lower probability we would change our rfc 3195 > > implementation > > to support 3195bis. I would expect this to happen in our products as > > well as in liblogging/rsyslog (open source projects). I have > sufficent > > decision-making authority to make this commitment (not thinking > about > > major market or overall company policy changes). > > > > I would deeply appreciate feedback if I should submit the > > -transport-ssh > > draft as a WG document. > > > > Rainer > > > > > > > > Disclaimer: products do not need to be commercial products; they > can > > > be freely available implementations, such as open source > libraries. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > David Harrington > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > co-chair, Syslog WG > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Chris Lonvick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 10:05 AM > > > > To: Rainer Gerhards > > > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Subject: Re: [Syslog] IESG secure transport requirement can > > > > be quicklysolved... > > > > > > > > Hi Everyone, > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 20 Jun 2006, Rainer Gerhards wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I would appreciate if the chairs could try to reach consensus > on > > > my > > > > > proposal. > > > > > > > > > > Comments are appreciated. > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Rainer > > > > > > > > I'll apologize up front for not paricipating in some recent > > > > dicussions. > > > > I'm on a business trip and rather busy with the day job right > now. > > > > > > > > I am willing to listen to a discussion of this proposal. As > > > > Rainer says, > > > > please provide some input and comments. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > 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
