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
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
Hi,
Let's keep in mind that syslog-sign will transport binary signatures. In
that, the authors are proposing to use base-64 encoding. I agree with
Rainer that we've provided enough means in syslog-protocol so that may be
accomplished.
As Rainer says, let's focus on getting syslog-protocol
Specifying the encoding makes sense to me. This way we can state that only
certain encoding support is required, but not preclude other options.
We are still ok with always having UTF-8 in SD values, right?
We need this for foreign usernames. We have discussed this before.
Thanks,
Anton.
Anton:
Specifying the encoding makes sense to me. This way we can
state that only certain encoding support is required, but not
preclude other options.
We are still ok with always having UTF-8 in SD values, right?
Yes, I was talking exclusively about MSG. I expect SD values to be
We are still ok with always having UTF-8 in SD values, right?
We need this for foreign usernames. We have discussed this before.
Yes, this would work for me. We need to ensure that the SD-IDs are always
going to be encoded in a known format. UTF-8 is a good choice.
Cheers
Andrew
, November 30, 2005 7:19 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Syslog] #3 NUL octets, #4 binary data, #8 octet-counting
Rainer,
That sounds good to me at this stage, and it keeps the door
open. I would prefer to see all binary data encoded in some
safe format like base64. It just makes
