prohibits
-
but allows
--
i
-id-
etc
(but not:-)
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: Rainer Gerhards [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 6:16 PM
Subject: RE: [Syslog] #7, field order
David, Darren,
even though no responses indicated we actually need
To: Rainer Gerhards; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Syslog] #7, field order
Not sure I have grasped the problem yet but the cases you
cite would appear to
be covered by rules of the form, using pseudo-English as a shortcut,
FIELD = ONECHAR / MORECHAR
ONECHAR = anyprintable character except
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
: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 12:17 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Syslog] #7, field order
David, Darren,
even though no responses indicated we actually need to fix this, I
wanted to at least try an alternate ABNF. However, I did not find a
suitable one. Probably I am not smart enough
data for that field.
If you don't understand the difference here, I think the fields need
to be defined something like this:
field ::= missing | non-dash | PRINTUSASCII*1 PRINTUSASCII*255
missing ::= -
And as someone else pointed out to me, PRINTUSASCII includes the
I was thinking that PRI is also not optional.
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: Rainer Gerhards [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 10:06 AM
Subject: RE: [Syslog] #7 field order
I just got private mail if a missing field is denoted
, 2005 4:07 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Syslog] #7 field order
I just got private mail if a missing field is denoted by -. This
is
the case. Optional fields should be all but VERSION.
Rainer
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
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
WG,
there has not been much discussion about the header fields and their
order recently. I think this is a sign the issue has been settled. To
make sure I got the right understanding of the resulting consensus, I
propose that we use the following format:
PRIVERSION SP TIMESTAMP SP
10 matches
Mail list logo
