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

From: Gerhard Muenz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 21:41:30 +0200

Hi,

Please find some comments regarding IPFIX inline.

Regards,
Gerhard

> Hi Folks,
> 
> 
> Here are the meeting minutes that I took. Please send back edits if you want anything changed.
> 
> ===
> 
> Meeting was started, blue sheets passed around, no one in jabber room other than the people in the room.
> 
> Chairs went through the slides.
> 
> 
> Q about syslog/BEEP on slide 10: We're not proposing to standardize this; it's already RFC 3195. Since the uptake on implementation (of this RFC, and of BEEP overall) is low, then the WG should consider moving the RFC to HISTORIC.
> 
> Jurgen S. gave a review of his thoughts on the proposed new charter items:
> Slide 8,
>  MIB, OK
>  DHCP, has some operational value
>  don't need an architectural reference to be done in the IETF
> Slide 9
>  might be interesting to have a guideline but not sure who would commit
> the time to do that
>  DTLS, should be done and aligned with RFC 5425 (syslog/tls)
>  syslog/tcp, should be very straightforward and easy to do
>  syslog/BEEP, declare HISTORIC
> 
> 
> Dan R. - Since syslog WG is proposing to do syslog/DTLS is there enough commonality so that ISMS/DTLS and IPFIX/DTLS can re-use?
> 
>  - Consensus was that this was likely.  David also noted that the others
> are also doing SCTP.
> 
> 
> Pasi E. - syslog/DTLS should be easy since it will draw directly from syslog/TLS.
> 
>  - IPFIX also working on Dead Peer Detection (DTLS Heartbeet), we should
> likely support this as well.

I'm not sure if this has been said in this way.

Correct is: IPFIX WG is NOT working on DTLS Heartbeat. The DTLS
Heartbeat extension is an individual draft located in the TLS WG.
However, it is correct that we have discussed the DTLS-over-UDP dead
peer detection problem (i.e., crashed Collector) in the IPFIX WG
session, including the DTLS Heartbeat extension as a possible solution
to this problem.

>  - There were problems with the previous IPFIX/DTLS but that was because
> of bad libraries in OpenSSL which have since been fixed.

No bad libraries. A few years ago, when we run IPFIX interops, DTLS was
just not sufficiently supported by OpenSSL. So, we could not test it.

> Wes H. - there is not that much commonality between the schemes because of a lot of useage details.
> 
> Chris and David have asked Joe Saloway to act as WG editor for the DTLS work.
> 
> Meeting adjurned at 10am.
> 
> ===
> 
> Thanks,
> Chris