Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Mapping for Syslog
RFC 5425

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 14 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko) Yes

(Pasi Eronen) Yes

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

(Chris Newman) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2008-08-13)
No email
send info
I find it to be bad design that every time we bind TLS to a particular
protocol we have to duplicate lots of text about server identity checks,
domain name matching, etc.  Often these texts vary slightly in ways that
are unimportant to the underlying problem but will cause
operator/administrator consternation for no technical benefit.

This particular instantiation has some very good text about certificate
handling that probably belongs in all the other instances of this
problem, so I would strongly encourage the authors to contribute to
  draft-hodges-server-ident-check

One thing that could be added to the certificate handling text to
improve it further is a requirement to support importing new trust
anchors and/or removing or disabling any built-in trust anchors.

(Tim Polk) No Objection

Comment (2008-08-12 for -)
No email
send info
In section 5.5:

s/(as described in Sections 5.2 and 5.3)/(as described in Sections 5.3 and 5.4)/

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection