Subject: [Syslog] Syslog-sign -26

From: "Alexander Clemm (alex)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 11:20:14 -0700

Hi,

I just submitted version -26, addressing the items below.  E.g.: New
examples have been included.
TBPL was changed to TPBL. Clarification on the "leading zeroes omitted",
where parameters contain decimal values. Clarification on the unix
system time.  

The most important issue concerned the issue of having multiple signers.
After some contemplating, I decided that this can be resolved quite
simply by clarifying that the combination of APP-NAME and PROCID refers
to a unique signer (no, I didn't introduce it as a new term, it's still
originator), and needs to be consistent between Certificate Block and
Signature Block messages.  If multiple originators are used, they each
in effect have their own "scope" - they each have their own Payload
Block and Signature Blocks etc.  

The algorithm in section 7 can stay the same, but I added some
clarification also there about how to identify/distinguish between
different originators, and the fact that consistency between Certificate
Block and Signature Block messages with regards to the originator needs
to be checked.  

Regards
--- Alex

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of [email-masked]
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 4:06 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Syslog] Syslog-sign -25

Hi Alexander, Jon and others,

Version -25 looks pretty good, and addresses all my comments except
one: the email "Signature groups, originators, etc." (on February 5).

Could you take the first attempt in proposing text that clarifies the
definition of Signature Group, and makes the algorithm in Section 7.1
actually work in all the cases?

Couple of minor nits:

- As Martin pointed out, the examples (4.2.9 and 5.3.2.9) still 
  use DER encoding, not MPIs
- The SD-PARAM-NAME for Total Payload Block Length should be 
  "TPBL", right? (not TBPL)
- Section 5.3.2.8, typo "Section Section"
- As pointed out by Richard (on December 22), Sections 5.3.2.4 and
  5.3.2.6 should have "with leading zeroes omitted" (like all other
  integer-valued fields)

Best regards,
Pasi
_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog