Hi Folks,
New ID:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-07.txt
Miao has submitted a revised -transport-tls document. This came about
after Sam performed a review and found some items that needed to be
addressed.
From Sam:
===vvv===
First, I think the idea of generic certificates will not meet with
consensus of the security community. It may be OK to use the same
Subject name for all cable modems from a given vendor, but reuse of
private keys is not something we should recommend in an IETF standard.
In general, preferring dnsname subjectAlternativeName to CN in the
subject field seems preferable. Why does this specification use cn
rather than either always using dnsname or using a procedure similar
to that in RFC 2818.
The text seems confused about what authentication is required when.
Section 5.1 implies that authentication of receivers is optional but
the text requires it.
Are senders and relays required to have a certificate and to use that
certificate?
===^^^===
There is a lengthy discussion which can be found in the archives.
David and I feel that there are enough significant changes to this
document that we'd like a WG review before we pass it back to Sam.
Please read this document and send a note back the the mail list - even to
say that you have no problems with the document. I'll ask that everyone
overlook typo's and small grammar problems at this time. We need to make
sure that the document:
- addresses Sam's concerns,
- meets the stated goals of our charter,
- is technically sound, implementable, and deployable,
- is a good thing to do for syslog.
Many thanks,
Chris
_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
Syslog@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
