PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 6:50 PM
To: Rainer Gerhards; 'Darren Reed'
Subject: RE: [Syslog] #7, field order
Hi,
Having a public feud won't help us achieve our goals.
I suspect I fall into the same category as most of the working group:
I'm not convinced there is a serious
PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 4:59 PM
To: Rainer Gerhards
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Chris Lonvick
Subject: nailing down characters in syslog-protocol
I would like to see a stricter definition of characters in
syslog-protocol.
With US-ASCII, references to space or period
.
Many thanks,
Rainer
-Original Message-
From: Balazs Scheidler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 1:50 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Rainer Gerhards
Subject: syslog-protocol draft
Hi,
I was just wondering if the next syslog-protocol draft
Bazsi,
many thanks for your mail. I am working on a new draft. But as it is
xmas time, it's quite busy, so other things also come into
my way. My
goal is to finish a new version before xmas holiday, but I can not
totally commit on that. I'd appreciate if you could review
it when it
Darren,
I have seen nobody backing your position, so I think it was consensus to
ignore these comments.
Rainer
-Original Message-
From: Darren Reed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 2:30 PM
To: Rainer Gerhards
Cc: Balazs Scheidler; [EMAIL PROTECTED
: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 3:14 PM
To: Rainer Gerhards
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Syslog] RE: syslog-protocol draft
Darren,
I have seen nobody backing your position, so I think it was
consensus to
ignore these comments.
And nobody decrying them either.
So are you saying
Chris,
I can agree to what you propose. So it's fine with me.
Question: does it make any sense to answer some of Patrik's questions (in order
to obtain some more advise). I guess he is pretty busy, so we might save this
for later. I'd appreciate your advise.
Rainer
-Original
Hi WG,
the topic of MSG encoding as well as its content (e.g. NUL and LF
characters) has not yet been solved. The past days, I've talked to a lot
of my friends not on this list and I have also looked at various ways to
solve the issue. Be prepared, this is another long mail, but I think it
is
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
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
, 2005 7:11 PM
To: Rainer Gerhards; Tom Petch; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Syslog] #7 field order
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
Of Chris Lonvick
(clonvick)
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 10:22 AM
To: Rainer Gerhards
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Syslog] #5 - character encoding (was: Consensus?)
Hi Rainer,
Why don't we look at it from the other direction? We could state that
any encoding is acceptable
Hi WG,
I have received notes via private mail telling me there seem to be some
existing (and eventually soon upcoming) valid use cases for binary data
in syslog. I think there is no point in arguing whether that's fortunate
or not. It simply looks like that's the way it is. I do not like the
idea
WG,
one discussion topic were the minor things I discovered during my
proof-of-concept implementation. If there is no objection, I will
address them in the next update of the I-D. So we could discuss them
once that is out. The reason is that I want to save some effort by not
posting each and
Darren,
I have received notes via private mail telling me there
seem to be some
existing (and eventually soon upcoming) valid use cases for
binary data
in syslog. I think there is no point in arguing whether
that's fortunate
or not. It simply looks like that's the way it is. I do
Chris,
I agree to all but one point - only that one quoted here...
Also want to clarify that you suggest that if the message
is in ASCII,
it will not required SD-ID, but for all other encodings,
SD-ID will be
required.
Yes - that's my suggestion.
I am sorry, we can not do this.
Chris,
I fully agree - thanks ;)
Rainer
-Original Message-
From: Chris Lonvick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 2:39 PM
To: Rainer Gerhards
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Syslog] #5 - character encoding (was: Consensus?)
Hi
PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 6:13 PM
To: Rainer Gerhards; Darren Reed
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Syslog] #2, max message size
Shouldn't the MTU be defined by the binding to the transport?
I fail to
see why the protocol, unbound to a transport, needs to have a limit
Of Rainer Gerhards
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 3:26 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Syslog] #3 NUL octets, #4 binary data, #8 octet-counting
Hi WG,
I have received notes via private mail telling me there seem
to be some existing (and eventually soon upcoming) valid use
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
your abilit to hope. It limits your worst
case, because you know what minimum length support you can expect. ;)
Rainer
John
-Original Message-
From: Rainer Gerhards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 11:37 AM
To: Moehrke, John (GE Healthcare)
Cc
Chris, WG:
as you are probably aware, Sam's deadline for comments about the future
of this WG is quickly approaching (it is December, 1st). I plan to
formally update my comment. To do so, I would like to know if we have
reached consensus on the charter.
I have taken the liberty to merge some
the first steps done.
So, yes, I would accept it.
Rainer
-Original Message-
From: Darren Reed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 7:46 PM
To: Rainer Gerhards
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Syslog] Consensus on Charter?
Are we happy to recharter when
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 11:04 PM
To: Rainer Gerhards; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Null character
Rainer,
FWIIW, I've seen Netscreen, NetGear and some LinkSys devices
send a Null
character at the end of each message. Not all versions of the
firmware
Andrew,
That's exactly our experience. 100% same story...
Rainer
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Ross [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 11:20 PM
To: Rainer Gerhards
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Syslog] New direction and proposed charter
Andrew WG,
a follow-up to my own posting, just some extra information.
When mapping over plain TCP I believe we should limit the
total message size
to 65507 bytes (to keep it compatible with UDP) and delimit
^^
Anton and other already
Glenn,
very interesting approach with the timestamp. I think your ideas can be
the key to maintaining a lot of backwards compatibility by still
retaining new functionality.
First some bad news: I am not sure if by BSD syslog you are refering
to RFC 3164 or a specific distribution of BSD. I have
minor) adjustments
need to be made
- the goal should still be to finish this work
(including AD approval) by the next IETF meeting
Rainer
-Original Message-
From: Chris Lonvick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 9:58 PM
To: Rainer Gerhards
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED
If we go for framing, we must use byte-couting, because we have not
outruled any sequence. If we go for octet-stuffing, we must
define an
escape mechanism. Any of this would be helpful for plain
tcp syslog, but
that is definitely a big departure from current syslog.
Please note that
Hi WG,
I know this is slightly off-topic, but hopefully tolerable. Based on the
many discussions I had recently about RFC 3195, I have decided to set up
a mailing list specifically for implemtnatations. The list charter is as
follows:
###
The rfc3195 list is targeted towards people interested in
101 - 130 of 130 matches
Mail list logo
