Re: Syslog-sign: Last minor clarifications/nits

Hi,

There does seem to be some conflicts in the section; if it SHOULD start 
with 1 and increment by 1 then how do we get to SnmpEngineReboots?

PROPOSED:
===
4.2.2.  Reboot Session ID

    The Reboot Session ID is a decimal value that has a length between 1
    and 10 octets.  The acceptable values for this are between 0 and
    9999999999.  Leading zeroes MUST be omitted.

    A Reboot Session ID is expected to increase whenever an originator
    reboots in order to allow collectors to distinguish messages and
    message signatures across reboots.  There are several ways in which
    this may be accomplished.  In one way, the Reboot Session ID may
    increase by 1, starting with a value of 1.  Note that in this case, an
    originator is required to retain the previous Reboot Session ID across
    reboots.  In another way, a value of the unix time (number of seconds
    since 1 January 1970 [reference?] may be used.  In yet another way,
    implementors wish to consider using the snmpEngineBoots value as a
    source for this counter as defined in [RFC3414].

    In cases where an originator is not able to guarantee that the Reboot
    Session ID is always increased after a reboot, the Reboot Session ID
    MUST always be set to a value of 0.  If the value can no longer be
    increased (e.g., because it reaches 9999999999), then manual
    intervention may be required to subsequently reset it.

    If a reboot of an originator takes place, Signature Block messages
    MAY use a new PROCID.  However, Signature Block messages of the same
    originator MUST continue to use the same APP-NAME and MSGID.
===

Does this work for everyone?

Thanks,
Chris

On Sun, 22 Mar 2009, [email protected] wrote:

>
> Hi Alex,
>
> By "timestamp", at least I've meant "POSIX timestamp (seconds since
> 1/1/1970) when the syslog daemon started".  But even with the new
> text, I'm still having trouble determining whether this would be
> an acceptable value for RSID...
>
> Best regards,
> Pasi
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [email protected]
>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ext Alexander
>> Clemm (alex)
>> Sent: 22 March, 2009 19:06
>> To: Martin Schütte; [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: [Syslog] Syslog-sign: Last minor clarifications/nits
>>
>> Hello Martin,
>>
>> I have clarified in the text that what I think it is you are
>> suggesting will be allowed.  But it is not a time stamp.  A time
>> stamp would be something like 2008-10-16T20:23:03+02:00.
>>
>> While it still suggests that the RSID should increase by 1, it is
>> not required.  It is merely required to simply increase (no problem
>> with an RSID reflecting a "time stamp"), unless it is set to 0.
>> Here is what the section in question reads now:
>>
>>    The Reboot Session ID is a decimal value that has a length
>>    between 1 and 10 octets.  The acceptable values for this are
>>    between 0 and 9999999999.  Leading zeroes MUST be omitted.
>>
>>    A Reboot Session ID is expected to increase whenever an originator
>>    reboots in order to allow collectors to distinguish messages and
>>    message signatures across reboots.  The Reboot Session ID SHOULD
>>    increase by 1, starting with a value of 1.  Note that in this case,
>>    an originator is required to retain the previous Reboot Session ID
>>    across reboots.
>>
>>    In cases where an originator is not able to guarantee that the
>>    Reboot Session ID is always increased after a reboot, the Reboot
>>    Session ID MUST always be set to a value of 0.  If the value can
>>    no longer be increased (e.g., because it reaches 9999999999),
>>    then manual intervention may be required to subsequently reset
>>    it.  Implementors MAY wish to consider using the snmpEngineBoots
>>    value as a source for this counter as defined in [RFC3414].
>>
>> Does this accommodate your concern?
>> --- Alex
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [email protected]
>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Martin Schütte
>> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 1:15 PM
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: [Syslog] Syslog-sign: Last minor clarifications/nits
>>
>> Alexander Clemm (alex) schrieb:
>>> On the first item, yes, the first item (RSID) is clearly a
>> counter; a
>>> time stamp cannot be used, nor can a value that is arbitrarily
>>> generated.
>>>
>>> To use a time stamp would require a parameter that is differently
>>> defined than the current RSID.
>>
>> Excuse my persistance here, but: why?
>> Especially if they do not have to be sequential.
>>
>> Is there any reason to define RSID as a counter instead of an
>> increasing
>> ID? When is a counter like 1-2-5-6 better than IDs like
>> 1234400000-1234500000-1234600000-12374700000?
>>
>> --
>> Martin
>> _______________________________________________
>> Syslog mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
>> _______________________________________________
>> Syslog mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Syslog mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
>

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