Re: AD review discuss/comments for draft-ietf-syslog-dtls

t.petch wrote:
> I see that this I-D had entered 'Revised I-D needed' which I would like to
> progress.
> 
> I see several comments about maximum record size, including a suggestion that we
> should make the 'SHOULD NOT' a 'MUST NOT' exceed 2**14.
> 
> I am dead set against this change.  We had a clear requirment, early on, to
> allow 65k messages, and I think it wrong to MUST NOT that requirement. The text
> in the other I-Ds is a compromise to strke a balance between this and having
> everything fit in 576 byte; I think we have the balance right.

Tom,

My response to Alexey was that this I-D borrows that particular 
requirement from RFC4347 and that this I-D shouldn't be upping the 
requirement.  If it's okay with you, I'll forward him your response. 
The way I read his comment was that he's just asking why - he's not 
really requesting a change.

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