Subject: [Syslog] Syslog-sign: Overlapping signature blocks

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:26:27 +0300

The document seems to assume that the message ranges covered by
different Signature Blocks don't overlap -- is this intentional?  
(If it is, it should be explicitly mentioned.)

(One obvious approach to redundancy would be to send Signature Blocks
covering an overlapping "sliding window" of messages, instead of
resending an identical signature block multiple times. But that
would require allowing overlap.)

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

---

From: Jon Callas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:28:16 -0700

On Jul 23, 2008, at 5:26 AM, <[email-masked]> <[email-masked] 
 > wrote:

> would require allowing overlap.)

Overlap of sliding windows is a feature, not a bug. If anything, we  
should reverse the polarity on your comment and more explicitly  
mention its utility.

	Jon

---

From: Chris Lonvick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:22:09 -0700 (PDT)

Hi,

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, Jon Callas wrote:

>
> On Jul 23, 2008, at 5:26 AM, <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> 
> wrote:
>
> Overlap of sliding windows is a feature, not a bug. If anything, we should 
> reverse the polarity on your comment and more explicitly mention its utility.

Agreed.  I found this email which discusses the concept.
   http://www.mail-archive.com/[email-masked]/msg00772.html

I did re-read the ID and found that the concept is not clearly stated.

Thanks,
Chris

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:33:46 +0300

> should reverse the polarity on your comment and more explicitly  

I asked about this because some parts of the draft need small changes
if overlapping sliding windows are allowed (and I agree that they
could be useful).

In particular, Sections 7.1 and 7.2 seem to assume no overlap.

Best regards,
Pasi