Subject: Re: [Syslog] Please review draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls

From: Martin Schütte <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 18:21:47 +0200

Chris Lonvick schrieb:
> We're getting very close on this.  Can we get some people to look it 
> over and let us know what you think?

I'm OK with it.

In case someone's interested: I wrote a small comparison between the 
current draft and my implentation in NetBSD's syslogd at 
http://mschuette.name/wp/2008/07/02/the-state-of-transport-tls-and-its-implementation/

-- 
Martin
_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:52:06 -0400

The syslog-transport-tls-13 looks OK.  I have the following 
comments/questions but they might not need any document changes.

1) In 4.2, is this the proper words for dealing with ongoing changes to 
other standards and RFCs? Someday the SHA1 use will be deprecated.  The 
people who do that probably are not syslog people and won't update this 
document.

2) In 5.2, name matching becomes much more complex when non-latin 
alphabets are included.  Even the meaning of case-insensitive can become 
unclear.  We deal with this routinely when doing person name matching and 
point to the Unicode TR-15 character matching rules and specify that the 
NFC rule set defines "equality".  This is also the W3C recommendation.  We 
then note that culture specific matching rules may be needed, e.g., the 
alternative encodings of "Strasser" in German, are not "equal" by the NFC 
rules.  Will this automatically flow through from the non-latin extensions 
for DNS and thus dnsName, or is something needed here?

I expect that there will still be implementer questions about some of the 
fingerprint and other rules, but these requirements are clear about the 
wire protocol.  It's not specific and should not be regarding user 
interface and configuration files.  So I agree with what is written.

Kind Regards,

Robert Horn | Agfa HealthCare
Research Scientist | HE/Technology Office
T  +1 978 897 4860

Agfa HealthCare Corporation, 100 Challenger Road, Ridgefield Park, NJ, 
07660-2199, United States
http://www.agfa.com/healthcare/
Click on link to read important disclaimer: 
http://www.agfa.com/healthcare/maildisclaimer
_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog

---

From: "tom.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:11:21 +0200

Looks ok.

Some editorial suggestions

a} /SubjectAltName field/subjectAltName extension/ twice

b} /ipAddress/iPAddress/ once

c} PKI; expand the acronym on first use

d} s5.1 need only refer to 4.2.2 not 4.2.1

e}  " SerialNumber portion of the Subject Distinguished Name"
I do not know what this; serialNumber of type X520SerialNumber?

f} s5.5 should reference 5.3 and 5.4 not 5.2

g} s7.1, cross reference to s4.1 for the port number definition

h} Should we add a reference for SHA-1?  I would not bother for a pkix document,
but for one aimed at network management, I think we should.  [RFC 3174]

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Lonvick" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 3:46 PM
Subject: [Syslog] Please review draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls

> Hi Folks,
>
> We're getting very close on this.  Can we get some people to look it over
> and let us know what you think?
>
> If you look it over and agree with the changes, we need some "I'm OK with
> this" and "me too" responses.  :-)
>
> For your convenience, the IETF tools people have provided a way to easily
> see the diffs from the last version here:
>    http://tools.ietf.org/wg/syslog/draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls/
>
> Thanks,
> Chris & David