RE: [Syslog] #2, max message size - Need to resolve this
I agree. The syslog-transport-udp-06 draft says this regarding maximum size: This protocol supports transmission of syslog messages up to 65535 octets in size. This limit stems from the maximum supported UDP payload of 65535 octets specified in the RFC 768 [1]. I see no need of restricting it further. For min size it says this: IPv4 syslog receivers MUST be able to receive datagrams with message size up to and including 480 octets. IPv6 syslog receivers MUST be able to receive datagrams with message size up to and including 1180 octets. All syslog receivers SHOULD be able to receive datagrams with messages size of at least 2048 octets. Sect 3.2 also has the rational for all of this - minimum MTU size, recommendation to avoid fragmentation, etc... Anton. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alexander Clemm (alex) Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 9:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Chris Lonvick (clonvick); [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Syslog] #2, max message size - Need to resolve this I think there is general agreement to specify minimum msg size, not maximum msg size in syslog-protocol. Concerning the transport, the same should hold true. I could see that there may be cases in which a transport might specify a minimum msg size that is larger than the one in syslog protocol (so, if syslog protocol is used over a certain transport, message size may be larger than what would be mandated by syslog protocol itself). I don't see that you should mandate to define a max message size for the same reasons we wouldn't define it in syslog-protocol itself. Why unnecessarily impose constraints when you don't have to? In other words, just define min sizes that implementations are obliged to support, but don't prevent them from supporting more if they want to. Just my $0.02. --- Alex -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew Ross Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 2:41 PM To: Chris Lonvick (clonvick); [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Syslog] #2, max message size - Need to resolve this My vote is for the way Rainer has worded it now. Specify the minimum msg size in syslog-protocol and define max message size in the transport documents. Cheers Andrew Hi Folks, We need to resolve this one. I've heard from Rainer and a very few others. I'd like to hear from more people on this. Choose one: __ The maximum message length needs to be defined in syslog-protocol. __ The maximum message length should be defined in the transport documents. __ I have a different idea Please VOTE NOW! Thanks, Chris ___ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog ___ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog ___ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog ___ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
RE: [Syslog] #2, max message size - Need to resolve this
Hi Rainer, You're the document author - you decide. I'm the WG Chair and my job is to make sure that the work continues. I think that we all would like for the document to be crisp, clear and to the point. Thanks, Chris On Thu, 1 Dec 2005, Rainer Gerhards wrote: Chris, Wouldn't David's text be suitable? I think it is very clear and precise. With it, probably the whole issue hadn't started. I know this WG likes it very brief, but isn't it worth the extra lines? Rainer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Lonvick Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 8:36 PM To: David B Harrington Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Syslog] #2, max message size - Need to resolve this Hi David, On Thu, 1 Dec 2005, David B Harrington wrote: Hi Chris, You have framed the question incorrectly. That became evident when people started responding. :) It appears that we have consensus that: - Rainer will place a recommendation of lengths into syslog-protocol so that recievers will have some expectations and, - transport documents will contain a not-to-exceed length requirement. Thanks, Chris This discussion is about the minimum maximum message length, not the maximum message length. This is about at least this big and not about no bigger than. All receivers MUST be able to handle the minimum maximum message size X, and it is RECOMMENDED that all receivers be able to handle messages of size Y, and receivers MAY choose to support sizes larger than Y. Senders can rest assured that any standard-compliant receiver WILL be able to handle messages of size X, so the sender can send a message of that size or less and not worry about it being truncated or dropped (so if it is a critical message, keep the message shorter than X). Senders can rest assured that most, but not all, compliant receivers WILL be able to handle messages of size Y, but there is a chance of the message being truncated or dropped, so if the message is important but you can live with it being dropped, then keep the message shorter than Y, and it will usually work. Senders can try to send messages larger than Y, but many receivers will be unable to handle such a size. Transport mappings may apply different constraints, but regardless of the transport, a compliant implementation MUST support the transport-independent limit X, and it is RECOMMENDED that the transport-independent limit Y be supported for improved interoperability. If desired an implemntation MAY allow larger sizes. Writers of transport mappings should pay attention to these limits. All transport mappings MUST support at least size X. If the transport can support size Y, then the transport mapping contraint should be set to no less than size Y, and for consistency with the transport-independent recommendation, SHOULD RECOMMEND support for size Y (rather than for size Y+1 or Y+2 or Y-7 or ...). If a transport mapping can handle sizes larger than Y, then the transport mapping can support larger messages, and MAY choose to set transport-specific contraints larger than Y. Is this strictly about which transport mapping is used? No, it is not! It establishes some standards that should be followed regardless of the transport used, if possible - all implementations MUST support size X, SHOULD support size Y, and MAY support larger sizes. Dbh -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Lonvick Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 2:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Syslog] #2, max message size - Need to resolve this Hi Folks, We need to resolve this one. I've heard from Rainer and a very few others. I'd like to hear from more people on this. Choose one: __ The maximum message length needs to be defined in syslog-protocol. __ The maximum message length should be defined in the transport documents. __ I have a different idea Please VOTE NOW! Thanks, Chris ___ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog ___ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog ___ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
RE: [Syslog] #2, max message size - Need to resolve this
I vote for a different idea... As in latest syslog-protocol, define only the minimum message size the receivers is required to accept. I vote for defining it in both. Syslog-protocol defines the least common agreed upon denominator. Transport defines the minimum that is appropriate for the transport, which can be higher if needed. Thus, if a receiver implements a syslog protocol and a given transport, it has to meet both requirements. Anton. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Lonvick (clonvick) Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 2:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Syslog] #2, max message size - Need to resolve this Hi Folks, We need to resolve this one. I've heard from Rainer and a very few others. I'd like to hear from more people on this. Choose one: __ The maximum message length needs to be defined in syslog-protocol. __ The maximum message length should be defined in the transport documents. __ I have a different idea Please VOTE NOW! Thanks, Chris ___ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog ___ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
RE: [Syslog] #2, max message size - Need to resolve this
I agree with Anton's wording and view. Instead of capping the size maximally that a syslog receiver is to support, it should be the minimum size that it should support. Steve -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anton Okmianski (aokmians) Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 12:15 PM To: Chris Lonvick (clonvick); [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Syslog] #2, max message size - Need to resolve this I vote for a different idea... As in latest syslog-protocol, define only the minimum message size the receivers is required to accept. I vote for defining it in both. Syslog-protocol defines the least common agreed upon denominator. Transport defines the minimum that is appropriate for the transport, which can be higher if needed. Thus, if a receiver implements a syslog protocol and a given transport, it has to meet both requirements. Anton. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Lonvick (clonvick) Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 2:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Syslog] #2, max message size - Need to resolve this Hi Folks, We need to resolve this one. I've heard from Rainer and a very few others. I'd like to hear from more people on this. Choose one: __ The maximum message length needs to be defined in syslog-protocol. __ The maximum message length should be defined in the transport documents. __ I have a different idea Please VOTE NOW! Thanks, Chris ___ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog ___ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog ___ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
RE: [Syslog] #2, max message size - Need to resolve this
For obvious reasons, I agree with Steve and Anton. Rainer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Chang (schang99) Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 9:46 PM To: Anton Okmianski (aokmians); Chris Lonvick (clonvick); [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Syslog] #2, max message size - Need to resolve this I agree with Anton's wording and view. Instead of capping the size maximally that a syslog receiver is to support, it should be the minimum size that it should support. Steve -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anton Okmianski (aokmians) Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 12:15 PM To: Chris Lonvick (clonvick); [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Syslog] #2, max message size - Need to resolve this I vote for a different idea... As in latest syslog-protocol, define only the minimum message size the receivers is required to accept. I vote for defining it in both. Syslog-protocol defines the least common agreed upon denominator. Transport defines the minimum that is appropriate for the transport, which can be higher if needed. Thus, if a receiver implements a syslog protocol and a given transport, it has to meet both requirements. Anton. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Lonvick (clonvick) Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 2:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Syslog] #2, max message size - Need to resolve this Hi Folks, We need to resolve this one. I've heard from Rainer and a very few others. I'd like to hear from more people on this. Choose one: __ The maximum message length needs to be defined in syslog-protocol. __ The maximum message length should be defined in the transport documents. __ I have a different idea Please VOTE NOW! Thanks, Chris ___ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog ___ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog ___ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog ___ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
Re: [Syslog] #2, max message size - Need to resolve this
I think there is general agreement to specify minimum msg size, not maximum msg size in syslog-protocol. FWIW, I think this is a much better idea. Darren ___ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
