>>>>> "Eliot" == Eliot Lear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Eliot> Sam, I got involved recently because both chairs asked me Eliot> to submit a draft to revise 3195 to reflect the work of Eliot> -protocol-19. I have done so. And so perhaps you can help Eliot> me. I'll try! Eliot> The charter calls for a secure transport. The milestones Eliot> say TLS (something that could easily be changed without Eliot> community review, mind you). Hmm. I thought that was in the text of the charter, but you're correct that it is not. It was circulated to the community though with the charter text. I agree it would not require community review to change, although it would be revisiting a WG decision. Eliot> A reasonable person could Eliot> believe that perhaps we might actually *build* on the work Eliot> that was already done with SYSLOG/BEEP/TLS. As I'm Eliot> relatively new to the party, I'll accept a pointer to the Eliot> logic of the choice. There being an IPR claim against the Eliot> new work, and the fact that multiple interoperable Eliot> implementations of a proposed standard that could easily go Eliot> to draft exist, I am hoping that pointer explains why this Eliot> group is has put aside both interoperability and basic Eliot> engineering principles of reuse. I'd recommend asking the chairs here. It's there job to call consensus and to the extent that there is consensus on reasons for decisions (not just the decisions themselves) to be able to explain that. I think that the implementers said they would implement syslog-tls, but not something 3195-based. But I was not heavily involved in that discussion other than to make sure it took place. _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog