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
Hi,
This is an issue that we need to discuss. I've had some discussions with
various people on this subject who's opinions I trust. They also suggest
that we do have 2 options as Rainer states. Let me describe this in a bit
more detail:
The consensus from all is that syslog-protocol shoul
Thanks for your quick response!
Comments inline!
> -Original Message-
> From: Rainer Gerhards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 5:56 PM
> To: Miao Fuyou
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Syslog] Preliminary syslog-transport-tls
&g
Miao,
thanks for the great (and quick) work. I can not review it fully right
now, but I have seen one issue that I would like to comment immediately
on. More comments follow later.
>[Issue 3] The problem of CR LF is it can not process binary data
>well. How to process Syslog signature/ce
Hi,
The TLS transport draft now is ready for your comments and recommodations.
Some issues are identified in the documents, which should be discussed in
the mailing list. I list the issues here.
[Issue 0]: Do we need a Syslog TCP port for TLS transport? The
security community had debates
