On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 04:35:13PM -0400, James Carlson wrote: > Nicolas Williams writes: > > Are you speaking of the protocol? > > Both of the files and the applications that use syslog. The protocol > itself is well enough defined. > > > The IETF SYSLOG WG is chartered to, among other things, add room in the > > protocol for structured messages: > > Yes, I'm well aware of that effort. I think it's misguided for > exactly the same reasons.
Have you said so on the WG list? > If someone feels like implementing syslogng on Solaris and (in > particular) the extensions that allow structured XML messages to be > generated, well, go ahead. I think it's really an unwise decision > because the usage case is unclear and seems to overlap greatly with > the intended purpose of more stable, robust, and already-deployed > mechanisms (such as SNMP Inform) to deliver event notification. But these protocols too have their security problems. Sure, I know, there's the ISMS WG -- but I see nothing in their charter about record signatures, only transport security and authentication. > But if someone's going to take this on and own it, and show how this > isn't merely an attractive nuisance for developers, I guess I'll wait > to see that. If the SYSLOG WG produces standards-track RFCs along these lines and others adopt these proposed standards, will we be able to resist adopting them too? To me that depends on just what the problems are with their approach. For the record, I've not read these I-Ds... Nico -- _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
