Subject: [Syslog] Issue 8 - Tim Polk DISCUSS

From: Chris Lonvick <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 08:19:43 -0700 (PDT)

Issue 8 - Tim Polk DISCUSS

Discuss:
There seems to be an essential disconnect between the conformance 
rquirements and the deployment guidance in this specification

The second paragraph of Section 6 Congestion Control states:

    DCCP has congestion control.  For this reason the syslog over DTLS
    over DCCP option is recommended in preference to the syslog over the
    DTLS over UDP option.

However, in Section 5.1,  Transport

    DTLS can run over multiple transports.  Implementations of this
    specification MUST support DTLS over UDP and SHOULD support DTLS over
    DCCP [RFC5238].

For alignment with Section 6, it would seem that "MUST support DTLS over 
DCCP" would be more appropriate.

Proposed resolution by Sean:
vvv
As noted by Lars (before my time on either the IESG or syslog list):

   If DCCP is available (not usually the case) running DTLS over it is
   trivial, so you could also make this a MUST. DCCP support itself is
   obviously not a MUST.

Maybe what we really ought to be saying is Section 6 (which is just
about congestion control):

   DCCP has congestion control.  For this reason when DCCP is available,
   syslog over DTLS over DCCP is recommended in preference to the syslog
   over the DTLS over UDP option.

and we leave Section 5 alone?
^^^

Tim Polk responded:
vvv
I will defer to Lars on this one.  Since we can't make DCCP support a 
MUST, your suggested text for Section 6 would resolve what remains of my 
issue.
^^^

ACTION:  Authors to review proposed resolution and discuss on list.

---

From: "t.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 10:05:30 +0200

Yes, I agree with this, that DCCP is recommended but only if it is available
(which I do not expect it to be:-) so update to s.6, leave s.5 alone.

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Lonvick" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 5:19 PM
Subject: [Syslog] Issue 8 - Tim Polk DISCUSS

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

---

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 14:14:02 -0400

Hi,

This syslog/dtls/dccp issue revolves around mandatory-to-implement but
not mandatory-to-use.

The draft recommends using syslog/DTLS over DCCP when DCCP is
available.
If DCCP is available in an environment, the environment probably
demands congestion awareness and control.

The RECOMMEND is not about whether DCCP is available at
implementation-time, but whether DCCP is available at use-time.
If implementations don't include support for the ***interface***
between (syslog/DTLS) and (DCCP), then even if DCCP is available at
use-time, users won't be able to use it.
This is similar to the MUST implement/SHOULD use advice in section 7
of BCP 61 (RFC3365).
A MUST-implement does not say that the implementer MUST implement
DCCP, only the interface to DCCP.

The interface between (syslog/DTLS) and (DCCP) should be MUST
implement, so that when DCCP is available in the user environment,
syslog can use it.

dbh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of t.petch
> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 4:06 AM
> To: Chris Lonvick; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Syslog] Issue 8 - Tim Polk DISCUSS
>