Hi Rainer,

Thanks for our comments, in-line,

Regards,
Miao
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rainer Gerhards [mailto:rgerhards@hq.a...]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 12:24 AM
> To: syslog@ietf...
> Subject: [Syslog] transport-tls-11 review
>
> Hi all,
>
> I reviewed tls-11 today. Some notes:
>
> Section 1.1: shouldn't it simply refer to -protocol for terms
> defined there? I think it makes it more consistent.

Agree, so we should only leave "TLS client" and "TLS server" to be define in
Syslog/TLS darft, right?

>
> Section 4.2:
>
> ===
>    Authentication in
>    this specification means that the recipient of a certificate must
>    actually validate the certificate rather than just accept a
>    certificate.
> ===
>
> Is this "must" intentionally in lower case? If so, is this plausible?

Yes, intentionally.

>
>
> Section 4.3.1: typo "tranport"

OK

> Section 5.1:
>
> ===
> The server MUST be implemented to support certificate and certificate
>    generation,
> ===
>
> I do not think it is a MUST that a server must contain code
> to generate certificates. This should be left to the
> implementation. There is already the requirement to use
> certificates, so IMHO it is not the business of an IETF
> document to specify how they are provided. For example, I  
> would provide a helper app with my syslog implementations,
> but not include it in the core app - it doesn't belong there.
>

Need more opinion from the working group.

>
> ----
>
> Other than that, I find the draft is quite acceptable.
>
> Rainer
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Syslog mailing list
> Syslog@list...
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
>



_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
Syslog@list...
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog