Re: [Syslog] Missing dead peer detection in DTLS

[<Pasi.Eronen at nokia.com>]

[trimming Cc list to just syslog]

Tom Petch wrote:

> > This would mean, that
> > * SYSLOG/TLS/TCP/IP
> > * SYSLOG/DTLS/SCTP/IP
> > * SYSLOG/DTLS/DCCP/IP
> > are in principle acceptable, whereas
> > * SYSLOG/DTLS/UDP/IP
> > is not.
> > You would (from the congestion control perspective) have the same
> > classification when taking out the DTLS or TLS layer, right?
> 
> <tp>
> I am unclear about your second sentence, but the first one, yes, I
> would expect the first three to be acceptable to the IESG (which is
> rather important if you want an I-D to become an RFC) and the last
> one not to be.  TLS (by using TCP), SCTP, DCCP have acceptable
> congestion control, DTLS and UDP do not.

Well, syslog-over-UDP was acceptable to IESG, and was published as 
RFC 5426 couple of months ago.

Syslog-over-UDP is not the mandatory-to-implement or recommended
transport for in RFC 5424, due to both congestion control and
security reasons. Syslog-over-DTLS-over-UDP would have the
same challenges in congestion control, so probably it wouldn't
be the mandatory-to-implement or recommended transport either.
But that doesn't prevent it from being published as RFC.

Best regards,
Pasi