." I guess I'll shift
this discussion to INCITS/CS1.
Thanks for the bandwidth.
-Eric
-Original Message-
From: Darren Reed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 5:07 AM
To: Eric Hibbard
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Syslog] Charter revision / WG obsol
-Original Message-
From: Darren Reed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 5:07 AM
To: Eric Hibbard
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Syslog] Charter revision / WG obsolete?
> As one of the many lurkers on this list, I have been monitoring this
> WG'
> As one of the many lurkers on this list, I have been monitoring this
> WG's activities and I'm a bit concerned with the recent posts. I had
> high hopes that some form of logging standardization might materialize,
> but that now seems to be in question.
That is outside the scope of this WG. We'
As one of the many
lurkers on this list, I have been monitoring this WG's activities and I'm a bit
concerned with the recent posts. I had high hopes that some form of logging
standardization might materialize, but that now seems to be in
question.
Recent regulations
within the U.S. (e.g.,
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Syslog] Charter revision / WG obsolete?
>
> Hi all,
>
> > If I get the essence in Darren's message right,
> > what he is proposing is to create a layered architecture for syslog.
>
> Yes, by using what&#
Hi all,
> If I get the essence in Darren's message right,
> what he is proposing is to create a layered architecture for syslog.
Yes, by using what's gone before us as the way to start doing that.
> Please face it: on the WG mailing list, we are pressing for ever and
> ever change. More and more
11:55 PM
> To: Chris Lonvick
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Syslog] Charter revision
>
> Chris,
>
> What I'd like to see happen is for 3195 to be broken up into 2 or
> more new RFCs, one (or more) which cover the protocol and one which
>
This proposal confuses me greatly. IT seems to be mixing message
formats and over the wire protocol.
___
Syslog mailing list
Syslog@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
Chris,
What I'd like to see happen is for 3195 to be broken up into 2 or
more new RFCs, one (or more) which cover the protocol and one which
defines their use over BEEP.
i.e. One which covers the COOKED profile, one which covers a RAW
profile and one which covers one or both of these over BEEP.
W
> Chris,
>
> We have been working 2+ years on syslog-protocol and
> syslog-transport-udp. We had hard discussions. It looked we reached
> concensus on the mailing list. Then, in the meeting, non-concensus was
> found. It looks like we have a big discrepancy between what is said on
> the mailing li
2005 6:17 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [Syslog] Charter revision
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> I'd like to start the discussion of revising our charter. We
> will need to
> address various parts of this.
>
> 1 - At the meeting, it was clear that many people thou
Hi Folks,
I'd like to start the discussion of revising our charter. We will need to
address various parts of this.
1 - At the meeting, it was clear that many people thought that we should
be building on the accepted syslog header.
A) Should the WG accept that the observed syslog header
12 matches
Mail list logo
