Re: nits on draft-ietf-syslog-dtls-02

Hi Sean,

Many thanks for this review.  I'm going to ask Joe to _not_ incorporate 
these changes at this time as they are editorial.  Joe can make the 
changes if the IESG asks for other changes, or during AUTH48.

One comment in-line below.

On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Sean Turner wrote:

> Here are some comments on draft-ietf-syslog-dtls-02.  All are nits.
>
> 1. Introduction:
>
> r/with TLS security [RFC5246]/with TLS [RFC5246]
> r/syslog Message/syslog message
>
> Upon first reading of the last paragraph, I was trying to figure out how I 
> was going to use syslog/DTLS/UDP/DCCP.  Can we use "in preference to" for 
> "over" in the last sentence (or something other than "over"):
>
> OLD:
>
> If an operator has the choice of the two, it is recommended to use syslog 
> over DTLS over DCCP.
>
> NEW:
>
> If an operator has the choice of the two, it is RECOMMENDED to use syslog 
> over DTLS in preference to syslog over DCCP.

I like the wording.  I'm going to say to keep the "recommended" as 
lowercase since it's not a directive for the protocol but a recommendation 
for deployment.

All the rest are good catches.

Thanks,
Chris

>
> 2. Terminology
>
> To align with the DTLS client definition:
>
> OLD:
>
> A "DTLS server" is an application that can receive a Client Hello from a 
> client and reply with a Server Hello.
>
> NEW:
>
> A "DTLS server" is an application that can receive a DTLS Client Hello from a 
> client and reply with a DTLS Server Hello.
>
> 4. Using DTLS to Secure Syslog
>
> r/Denial of Service attacks/Denial of Service attacks.
>
> 5.4.1 Message Size
>
> r/each DTLS record must fit within a single DTLS datagram/each DTLS record 
> MUST fit within a single DTLS datagram
>
> spt
> _______________________________________________
> Syslog mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
>
_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog