Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-32: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to 
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for this document. I have a few points to discuss that hopefully are
minor and a result from my misunderstanding.

The layout is completely broken / wrapped, making the document fairly
unreadable. Can this be fixed somehow ?

I don't see a method for syslog using TCP without TLS ? In fact, I am using
that on my personal home router to my collection server, without TLS. Could the
document not simply use:

  +--rw (transport)
              |  +--:(udp)
              |  |  +--rw udp
              |  |     +--rw address?   inet:host
              |  |     +--rw port?      inet:port-number
              |  |  +--rw tcp
              |  |     +--rw address?   inet:host
              |  |     +--rw port?      inet:port-number
              |  +--:(tls)

Also, how do ports and addresses combine. Can I specify  "1.2.3.4:80 and
5.6.7.8:443" ? It looks like that is not the case here?

I don't see an option for configuring ratelimits, which are commonly available
as options for syslog services?

Could the TLS configuration parameters not use another model (one the IESG
reviewed a little while ago?). It seems odd to define these within the syslog
module. It would be nice if any kind of certificate options with TLS could be
included from another module so if there are no TLS options, this module/RFC
does not require updating?

Maybe the same applies for the "signers" section but perhaps that is
differently formatted data signed and unrelated to the TLS layer ?


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Related question: Is it one certificate+key that used for the TLS connection as
well as to sign data within the payload of packets?

facility-filter seems badly named as it also filters for severity ? Maybe
syslof-filter ?



_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to