| Newsgroups |
gmane.ietf.syslog |
| Message-ID |
<[email protected]> |
Jon Callas wrote:
> Yes, but. The existing design and consensus on syslog-sign is that's
> a DSA system, and doesn't require a CA. The rationale, as I said
> before comes from the days when syslog meant UDP, and size truly
> mattered. That may not matter so much today, especially if you're
> using TLS as a transport.
>
> But that's what the existing consensus is. Do we have to, at this
> late date, throw out the existing consensus and put in RSA and CAs?
Doesn't *require* a CA, or doesn't *support* CAs?
(BTW, to me, RSA vs. DSA seems totally orthogonal to CA vs. no CA
issue).
Best regards,
Pasi
_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog