Subject: Re: [Syslog] Matters arising was: Re: syslog WG meeting minutes(proposed)

From: Gerhard Muenz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 22:31:42 +0200

Hi,

It seems that syslog is struggling with issues IPFIX has already gone
through. It might be worth looking at RFC5101 and the wording in Section
10.3 about IPFIX-over-UDP:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5101#section-10.3.1

Regards,
Gerhard

> 
> Hi,
> 
> To clarify a point ...
> syslog/tls is not simply RECOMMENDED; it is MANDATORY TO IMPLEMENT.
> 
> syslog/dtls will be an optional transport; we do not need to RECOMMEND
> it.
> Implementers can decide for themselves whether to implement it.
> I agree that the IESG may not approve it with congestion control
> considerations.
> 
> dbh 
>

---

From: Chris Lonvick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 13:45:37 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Gerhard,

syslog has already gone through that.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5424#section-8.6

The issue at hand is how to position XYZ/dtls with respect to the same set 
of circumstances.  syslog, ipfix and isms will all need to address that 
and likely will need to be consistent.  As David is saying, syslog/dtls 
will be an optional transport and will probably carry the same verbiage as 
was written in 8.6 of RFC 5424.

Regards,
Chris