> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rainer Gerhards [mailto:email@example.com...]
> 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
> Is this "must" intentionally in lower case? If so, is this plausible?
> Section 4.3.1: typo "tranport"
> Section 5.1:
> The server MUST be implemented to support certificate and certificate
> 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.