RE: [Syslog-sec] -transport-udp, section 4.4 - UDP RFCs

["Anton Okmianski" <aokmians@cisco.com>]

Rainer, I think it is good to mention both original UDP RFC and
RFC2460 since the latter clarified certain things about UDP use with
IPv6.  But I think I already kinda do it in one sentence: 

"This transport protocol was designed to work on top of UDP [3] over
both IPv4 [4] and IPv6 [5]."

... Where 3 is RFC768, 4 - RFC 791 and 5 - RFC 2460.  RFC 2460 does
clarify certain things with UDP (like use of checksums). I can change
it to this if you like:

"This transport protocol was designed to work on top of UDP [3][5]
over both IPv4 [4] and IPv6 [5]."

I don't like the idea of having no reference to a specific RFCs for
UDP.  

Anton.   

> -----Original Message-----
> From: syslog-sec-bounces@willers.employees.org 
> [mailto:syslog-sec-bounces@willers.employees.org] On Behalf 
> Of Rainer Gerhards
> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 8:08 AM
> To: syslog-sec@employees.org
> Subject: [Syslog-sec] -transport-udp, section 4.4 - UDP RFCs
> 
> 
> WG,
> 
> Section 4.4 specifically requires certain RFC formats for 
> UDP. I wonder if it wouldn't be wiser to just say "UDP" 
> without pointing to a specific RFC. The reasoning behind this 
> is that e.g. a revision to RFC2640 that leads to a new RFC 
> number would also require a revision of -transport-udp just 
> to update the RFC number. As of my understanding, the term 
> "UDP" should be well defined enough so that there is no need 
> to point to the specific RFCs. This is just a thought, I am 
> neiter sure about it nor do I have a strong opinion.
> 
> Rainer
> _______________________________________________
> Syslog-sec mailing list
> Syslog-sec@www.employees.org 
> http://www.employees.org/mailman/listinfo/sysl> og-sec
> 

_______________________________________________
Syslog-sec mailing list
Syslog-sec@www.employees.org
http://www.employees.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog-sec