[Strictly speaking as an implementor, not as a draft editor] I second Juergen's point of view.
I go even further. When receiving, I take great care not to loose any message. Under stress conditions (e.g. low system memory), I accept lage deformations of the message. Checksums are my least concern and I wouldn't discard a message "just" because the checksum is invalid. I will defintely ignore any such MUST in a RFC, at least by default. I may, however, flag this message as being in error (which possibly means it ends up in a different bin). The reasoning behind all this is that a vital message might be lost forever and it is better to receive it in some degraded state. At least this is what my *actual* users are requesting. Rainer > -----Original Message----- > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 9:24 PM > To: Chris Lonvick > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Syslog] Discuss - UDP Checksum > > On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 11:51:13AM -0700, Chris Lonvick wrote: > > > Which brings us back to our original question. Is the > proposed language > > below what the WG wants? > > As an implementor, I have a problem with the statement > > syslog senders MUST use UDP checksums when sending messages > over IPv4 > > since on several platforms, I simply can't ensure this when I write a > portable SYSLOG implementation. So I can either claim my code to be > RFC compliant while in a real deployment it might not behave > conforming to the RFC (depending on the kernel settings for example), > or I tell the truth that I can never guarantee compliant behaviour of > my implementation. > > So if we need to have language at all, what about > > syslog senders MUST NOT disable UDP checksums > > This is something I can implement much more easily since the default > seems to be enabled on those platforms I am familiar with. ;-) > > Or alternatively go back to SHOULD > > syslog senders SHOULD use UDP checksums when sending > messages over IPv4 > > with the likely non-obvious interpretation that you should enable / > not disable checksums in your code but if the kernel bites you, you > are still fine. > > My point is that if we put out requirements for implementations, lets > do this in a way that a coder can reasonably implement them. > > /js > > [No, I am not implementing SYSLOG right now - but I am familiar with > other protocols running over UDP and hence this got my attention.] > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> > > _______________________________________________ > 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
