Re: [Syslog] Implications of protocol draft changes for tls draft

["tom.petch" <cfinss at dial.pipex.com>]

<inline>
Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Hartman" <hartmans-ietf at mit.edu>
To: <syslog at ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 8:08 PM
Subject: [Syslog] Implications of protocol draft changes for tls draft
>
>
> Greetings.  Other than the issue I pointed out today, it looks like
> we're done with protocol and transport-udp.  Once that issue is
> resolved I can approve both of these documents and send them to the
> rfc-editor.
>
> However, in your discussions with the transport area directors you
> made some changes to the protocol document that have implications for
> the tls document.  Curently, the tls document is awaiting revisions to
> address my latest round of comments.  I'd like the working group to
> think about the implications of changes to protocol when revising the
> tls document.
>
> In particular, you are now recommending that the tls transport be used
> in most situations in preference to the udp transport.  As a
> consequence, that means the tls transport is no longer just for
> security sensitive applications.  So, the TLS document needs to
> reflect this wider applicability.
>
> In particular, I definitely expect it to work in cases where senders
> do not have certificates.  The working group also needs to think about
> delployment issues surrounding trust anchors.  You need to either
> convince yourselves that getting appropriate trust anchors onto
> devices will not be a problem in these situations or provide
> mandatory-to-implmenet semantics when trust anchors cannot be
> provided.
>

The timing seems unfortunate.  I saw a trust anchor BOF proposed in Chicago so
in a year or two's time, we could piggy back someone else's work.  As of now,
this could be a struggle.

Tom Petch


_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
Syslog at lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog