David,
I agree on this point. But -transport-udp cross-references -protocol and
-protocol must cross-reference -transport-tls (or whatever it will be
named), so they must be sumbitted together even though there is no
direct relationship between -transport-udp and -transport-tls.
Rainer
-Original Message-
From: David B Harrington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 2:12 PM
To: Rainer Gerhards; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Syslog] implementing -protocol and -transport-udp
Hi,
Just a point. -transport-udp and -transport-tls should be independent
of each other, since one is based on udp and the other on tcp. I just
want to be sure that is understood.
-transport-udp and transport-tls should have a comparable interface to
the rest of the syslog documents. Do we agree on that point?
David Harrington
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rainer Gerhards
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 2:46 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Syslog] implementing -protocol and -transport-udp
Hi all,
it is nice to see us making progress. However, as we need to
finish (and
start) a secure transport before we can submit -protocol and
-transport-udp, I have a question to the implementors here on
the list.
-transport-udp is basically finished and -protocol just needs
a brush up
(aka hopefully soon finished). I wonder if some folks would like
to
implement these drafts, even before they are submitted (aka
soon ;)).
I see several advantages in doing so:
- we get real-world experience about what is practical and
what not - this enables us to create a better standard
- we can do interop-testing between different implementations,
again clarifying how good the text is
- we prepare for rapid deployment once the draft has been
submitted
- we (and our users) can enjoy the benefits of the standardized
format earlier
- we have implementation reports at hand when the IESG asks about
vendor and user acceptance
Remember that both drafts are essentially ready for publication -
what
is missing is just a secure transport, which does not interfere
with
what we currently have. Of course, implementations could lead to new
discussions and eventual changes to the draft. I think is is better
to
have this now then when it is released.
I already did a test implementation in rsyslog. It prooved to be
quite
easy and quickly doable. If others agreee to implement it too, I
would
go ahead and also see that we implement it in our commercial
packages.
I hope that my proposal is a good one and that other
implementors would
like to participate. Please reply on list if you think this would be
a
good idea or not.
Many thanks,
Rainer
___
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
