On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 14:25 -0800, Chris Lonvick wrote:
> I will say that the WG is not addressing the transport of binary messages
> at this time. However, I know that it's a concern of this group and I
> would hope that the people who think about this take that thought into
> consideration wh
Baszi,
> I see the following possible upsides of using some kind of framing:
> * byte-counted messages, effectively allowing the use of the full
> character set
> * application layer acknowledgements, avoid losing messages sitting in
> the TCP socket buffers without knowing that they were not rea
My 2 cents... Do the byte counting. Look at the headers of pretty much any
successful protocol (TCP, IP, UDP, etc) - they all specify length of payload.
Special character sequence is really a hack IMO!
Just to be clear, there was never any intention to allow multiple messages per
UDP datagra
> My 2 cents... Do the byte counting. Look at the headers of
> pretty much any successful protocol (TCP, IP, UDP, etc) -
> they all specify length of payload. Special character
> sequence is really a hack IMO!
After some thinking, I agree with Anton. I, too, think that
octet-counting is supe
Hi. I'm pleased to report that your charter has been approved. It
will take a few days for official word to come out but you can move forward
under this charter.
--Sam
___
Syslog mailing list
Syslog@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/list
