Chris I would say that there was controversy about the use of ports and that that should be reflected in the shepherding document. I would not be surprised to see this issue come up in IETF Last Call and it would be better to show that we had at least considered it. Something along the lines of
"There was also some controversy about the use of a dedicated port for this, initial version of syslog over TLS; the consensus was that a dedicated port should be requested and that there should be no indication of version with the consequence that any future change to the protocol might require a different port number." Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Lonvick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 5:12 PM Subject: [Syslog] Near Final Shepherding Document fordraft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-05.txt > Hi, > > Please review this and the latest version of the document. Send in any > comments very soon as we would like to submit this to the IESG by Friday. > If I don't hear anything, then this will become the final shepherding > document. > > Thanks, > Chris > > === > Having passed a WG Last Call, draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-05.txt is > ready for AD review. > > [Area] SECURITY > [WG] syslog > [I-D] draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-05.txt > [Qver] draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-08.txt > [Shep] Chris Lonvick <clonvick at cisco.com> > > > === > (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the > Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the > document and, in particular, does he or she believe this > version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? > Chris Lonvick <clonvick at cisco.com> > Yes; I believe that the document is ready for publication. > === > (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members > and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have > any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that > have been performed? > > Adequate review has occurred from WG members, and it has been reviewed > by others. The reviews of the WG Last Call for this document (-03 > version) may be found here: > > > Bert Wijnen's review (not a member of the WG mailing list) > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/syslog/current/msg01244.html > > John Calcote's review > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/syslog/current/msg01199.html > > Other reviews of particular sections and concepts fill the WG mailing > list. Of note is Eric Rescorla's review (of -02) > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/syslog/current/msg01100.html > > > The issues raised in these reviews have been discussed on the mailing > list and most of them were fixed in version -04. A very few minor issues > were also addressed from that which resulted in vresion -05. I am > satisfied about the level of review. > === > (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document > needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, > e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with > AAA, internationalization or XML? > > I have no concerns. > === > (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or > issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director > and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he > or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or > has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any > event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated > that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those > concerns here. > > There are no concerns about the technical merit of the document. > === > (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it > represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with > others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and > agree with it? > > There is strong consensus to publish this document. > === > (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme > discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in > separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It > should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is > entered into the ID Tracker.) > > No appeals have been threatened. > === > (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the > document satisfies all ID nits? (See > http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and > http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are > not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document > met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB > Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? > > Normative reference [3] is not used in the document. This reference will > be dropped by the RFC Editor during AUTH48. > > There is an extraneous blank line in the Acknowlegements section which > will be removed during AUTH48. > === > (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and > informative? Are there normative references to documents that > are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear > state? If such normative references exist, what is the > strategy for their completion? Are there normative references > that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If > so, list these downward references to support the Area > Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. > > The references are split into normative and informational references. > The document is dependant upon draft-ietf-syslog-protocol-19.txt which > is being submitted along with this document. > === > (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA > consideration section exists and is consistent with the body > of the document? If the document specifies protocol > extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA > registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If > the document creates a new registry, does it define the > proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation > procedure for future registrations? Does it suggested a > reasonable name for the new registry? See > [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]. If the document > describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with > the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the > needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? > > The document IANA section is complete. No registries are requested. > === > (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the > document that are written in a formal language, such as XML > code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in > an automated checker? > > The ABNF in the document has been verified through > http://www.apps.ietf.org/abnf.html > === > (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document > Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document > Announcement Writeup? Recent examples can be found in the > "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval > announcement contains the following sections: > > > Technical Summary > Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract > and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be > an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract > or introduction. > > > This document describes the use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) to > provide a secure connection for the transport of syslog messages. > This document describes the security threats to Syslog and how TLS > can be used to counter such threats. > > > Working Group Summary > Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For > example, was there controversy about particular points or > were there decisions where the consensus was particularly > rough? > > > There was controversy around the IPR statement from Huawei from this > document. The Working Group examined the issue and came to consensus > that the statement would be accepted. > > There was some controversy around the use of a special character to denote > the end of the payload, or a counter at the start of the payload to > indicate the length of the payload. The Working Group has consent that a > counter is the best mechanism. > > > Document Quality > Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a > significant number of vendors indicated their plan to > implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that > merit special mention as having done a thorough review, > e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a > conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If > there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, > what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type > review, on what date was the request posted? > > > This protocol has very similar characteristics to implementations of > syslog over ssl that are available at this time. Members of the Working > Group have noted that it should be a very small change to bring those > implementations in line with this specification. > > No vendors have announced that they will utilize this protocol. Some > vendors have indicated interest in supporting this document. A group > of university researchers have implemented this protocol and found that > it is practicable. > > The above named reviewers did an outstanding and thorough job. > > > Personnel > Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Who is the > Responsible Area Director? > [Area] SECURITY > [WG] syslog > [I-D] draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-05.txt > [Qver] draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-08.txt > [Shep] Chris Lonvick <clonvick at cisco.com> > [AD] Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf at mit.edu> > === > > _______________________________________________ > 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
