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
I was thinking that PRI 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 -. This
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
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 of
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
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.
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
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 30,
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
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, December 01,
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
11 matches
Mail list logo