[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       syslog-sec
Subject:    Re: Some  more remarks on -sign
From:       "Chris M. Lonvick" <clonvick () cisco ! com>
Date:       2002-02-25 15:39:15
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi Everyone,

Can we combine the cookie and the version?  I think that
we agreed a while ago to combine the Priority and Version 
fields since they contained the same information.  Albert
shot down my attempt to combine TAG+cookie+version  :-)
so I'll let someone else propose something here.

I would also like to see space character separators between
the fields.  It would keep it human readable and would be
consistent with old-style syslog.

Thanks,
Chris


At 03:23 PM 2/25/2002 +0100, albert.mietus wrote:
>Hay all,
>
>Aside from the discussion on "the cost of DSA", a few more comments on the
>current draft (04).
>
>[ I looked over them, the last time]
>
>* Why is the (H3.2) PRIORITY field call so?
>
>We need a field which stores the version(s) of syslog-sign, the hashing and
>signature version. But we should call it "VERSION".
>(And it should _not_ be binary/base64.)
>
>* Order of fields (first: cookie or VERSION/prio)
>
>It's just cosmetically. But I would prefer when the cookie comes first. And
>the versioning second. This seams more natural to me). Any reason, it isn't?
>Did I miss something?
>
>* I don't understand the need for 3.2 priority and 3.4 version?
>        I think (see above) both are a versionID.
>        The second one can out. The first one should be on the second's place (as
>said before)
>
>* How are fields (cookie, *-ID, hashes, ...) separated?
>  It is clear there is a space after H3.2 priority. But, ...
>
>  In H3.2 is mentioned:  "1,2 or 3 characters ... with a space".
>        So its a        string like "abc ", or "kl " or "q ".
>        The total length, with space is 2, 3 or 4 positions.
>  In H3.1 is stated it ("the priority") is (exactly) 3 bytes.
>
>  HOWEVER, ... In H3.1, the size of the other field are also listed without
>        such a space/separator. Whereas The text in H3.3 .. H3.11 don't mention
>        anything about a space, or separator.
>        Does it mean the isn't one? (We just count the positions)
>        Or is there a space between each field?
>
> Please clarify this (I hope there is a space).
>        We need the space, whenever we don't use the base64 encoding for
>        trivial encoded "numbers".
>
>* Can we extent all ID/number field to "UPTO 12 charters"
>        (without the terminating space)
>
>        Then it will be possible to implement it as "yyyymmdd-seq"; which
>        is easy, and often used. E.g. in DNS SOA records.
>        Note: it's just an option to implement it. Not an requirement. But
>        It can be handy, and it's easy to read.
>
>* Can we change all "number" fields, which now have a fixes length
>        (and are coded base-64) into variable sized field?
>
>        In practice, other thy will/can be a small, 1 or 2 digit
>        decimal number; like "1 " of "13 " (both with terminating space).
>
>        It will save (some) space, without the risk of "overflow".
>        It will make the message more readable too.
>
>* We have 2 separate hash/signature "objects"; but only 1 "marker".
>        The H3.2 Version denotes which algorithm is used.
>
>        However, there are signatures of:
>                a)      the syslog-messages (that we "guard")
>                b)      the syslog-sign signature-blocks (
>                                (i.e. the signature meant in 3.11)
>        Question: is it needed that both use the algorithm? Or should we allow them
>to
>                be separate. In the later case, we need a second "version" field.
>
>
>Hope these remarks are clear. Whenever I find more, I will post them.
>Please, questions of comment on my remarks as well.
>
>PS. I didn't see any reaction on my proposal to include an XHDR field (with
>full DNS name an highres daytime fields, both as "recommendation" for syslog
>and as "requirement" for -sign.
>Does it mean, everybody agrees??? Or ...
>
>
>
>--ALbert
>sent mail to albert@ons-huis.net, to address me personal.
>sent mail to albert.mietus@pts.nl, to address me for businesses

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]