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
Anton,
Thanks for the clarification. Your wording is correct. SD-ID will also
have "-" to indicate that it is "undefined", which in this case actually
means there is none.
Rainer
> -Original Message-
> From: Anton Okmianski (aokmians) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, Decembe
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
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 recieve
Not sure which bits of MIME you have in mind but I like the term
Content-Transfer-Encoding, I like the list of such encodings, I like the list of
charsets and I like the way that the user/application gets to choose a suitable
delimiter for the various parts rather than have the protocol designer im
Hi Chris,
You have framed the question incorrectly.
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 i
Rainer, a better way to phrase this is may be that none of the fields are
optional (except for maybe SD, depending on how you define the separators).
Some fields just have special values which are allowed to designate an
"undefined value". So, the fields are always there.
Anton.
> -Orig
I suggest including wording to the effect
"if no SD-ID encoding element is specified, then the encoding of the
content is implementation specific and it is RECOMMENDED that no
assumption be made about the encoding of the content."
dbh
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [m
David,
> Can you please ask those who are sending you private messages to make
> their points on the mailing list, as is appropriate for IETF WG
> discussions?
That's what I typically do. But what if they are not willing to do that
and the point is important?
Rainer
Hi,
Can you please ask those who are sending you private messages to make
their points on the mailing list, as is appropriate for IETF WG
discussions?
dbh
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rainer Gerhards
> Sent: Wednesday, November
David,
I agree with your argument. My point (obviously not properly conveyed)
was that I would prefer if *new* efforts would be turned into "running
code" and the lessons learned be applied to the drafts. While
implementing, you detect a lot of inconsistencies...
Rainer
> -Original Message--
Hi Darren,
I suggest you work with some other implementors of TCP-based syslog to
write a TCP transport mapping I-D that can be considered as the
starting point for future WG work, if the current work ever gets
completed. At a minimum, the document could probably be published as
Informational.
d
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 i
Rainer wrote:
I am an IETF freshman. Anyhow, I often read that the IETF was driven
by
"rough consensus and running code". I say "was", because my impression
is that this is no longer the case. I would prefer it were...
While the IETF has increased its theoretical discussions, I think a
major part
Hi,
I recommend we stop talking about RFC3164-compliant, since RFC3164 is
only an Informational document and not standards-track.
dbh
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rainer Gerhards
> Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 8:01 AM
> To
Darren:
> > > > MSG-size-in-octets would be the size of the MSG part
> (just that!) in
> > > > octets. Counting just the MSG part is sufficient, as
> the rest of the
> > > > message consists of fields properly delimited. The size is
> > > probably most
> > > > useful for binary data.
> > >
> >
Hi,
I will observe that the syslog MIB has been declared "dead" in the
ID-tracker, and it has expired in the I-D repository. Is this
deliberate, and if so, why? No explanation is given in the ID-tracker.
dbh.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Hi,
It would be a good thing to enumerate in the charter the select set of
mechanisms to be standardized and included in the charter deliverables
by the charter deadlines. That would severely limit any possibility of
mission creep, something this group needs to constrain.
I am concerned about the
Tom,
well-spotted. Indeed, PRI is NOT optional. The only one, as far as I am
concerned.
Rainer
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Petch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 12:35 PM
> To: Rainer Gerhards; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Syslog] #7 field order
>
I am uncomfortable with the terminology because I do not think it precise
enough.
Digression on terminology:
Character Set is a set of characters (letters, number, symbols, glyphs ...)
Coded Character Set gives each a (numeric) code, as in ISO 10646.
Character Encoding (Scheme/Syntax) specifies ho
I was thinking that is also not optional.
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: "Rainer Gerhards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 10:06 AM
Subject: RE: [Syslog] #7 field order
I just got private mail if a missing field is denoted by "-". T
Well... let me rephrase it slightly ;) After -protocol is finished, we could
actually do something like syslog-mime, which could then describe this as an
optional feature. Might even not be as crazy as it sounds - at least if I look
what has been suggested so far. syslog-mime might be a solution
Tom,
I apprecite your point. My intension is:
-15 specifies that MSG must contain UTF-8 encoding exclusively (full character
set). During implementation, I have seen that I can not obtain the encoding
information for to-be-sent messages under Unix. In the mean time, Balazs
Scheidler has sugges
I am exactly of Baszi's view - and this is what -15 does. The root cause
of this discussion was that there were suggestions to add a 4 (or was it
5) octect decimal message length counter to the header, which would have
imposed a limit.
No matter what max limit we will set, IMHO no clearly thinking
Tom, WG
I am *not* kidding. If we go for an encoding header, why not use MIME?
Rainer
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Petch
> Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 10:05 AM
> To: Chris Lonvick
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: R
As party to the original consensus, as reflected in -15, I know of nothing new
that causes me to want to change anything.
I note too that there is support for something in this area in netconf (amongst
other application protocols), where the issue is less acute since the protocol
is duplex.
Tom P
On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 11:07 -0800, Chris Lonvick wrote:
> 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.
>
>
> __ Th
- Original Message -
From: "Chris Lonvick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Rainer Gerhards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 2:18 PM
Subject: RE: [Syslog] #5 - character encoding (was: Consensus?)
> Hi Rainer,
>
> Let's use this e
Rainer
I think I detect an approach I do not agree with, in this and perhaps other
issues.
You seem to be saying that the (eg POSIX) syslogd must emit perfect syslog
messages and is responsible for anything that is wrong with them no matter what
it received from the application (I exaggerate slig
Missed reply-all...
Forwarded Message
> From: Balazs Scheidler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Rainer Gerhards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: [Syslog] #5 - character encoding (was: Consensus?)
> Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 10:55:42 +0100
>
> On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 09:01 +0100, Rainer G
again, reply-all...
Forwarded Message
> From: Balazs Scheidler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Darren Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [Syslog] #3 NUL octets, #4 binary data, #8 octet-counting
> Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 11:02:49 +0100
>
> On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 19:47 +1100, Darren
31 matches
Mail list logo
