://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=ATNA_Profile_FAQ
> -Original Message-
> From: Rainer Gerhards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 10:38 AM
> To: Chris Lonvick
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Syslog] RFC 3195bis?
>
> Ah... interestin
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Lonvick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 5:23 PM
> To: Rainer Gerhards
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Syslog] RFC 3195bis?
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm OK removing references to RFC 3195 from syslog-sign f
Hi,
I'm OK removing references to RFC 3195 from syslog-sign for the points you
mention. I'd welcome other opinions.
I agree that RFC 3195 is due for an update but I disagree with most of
your other points. A major vendor has found customers requesting it and
has implemented it.
http://www
> The Chairs have been discussing this already. We have a candidate to
> write the update. The length limit in RFC 3195 was constrained by RFC
> 3164 and we have moved beyond that with the transport IDs which
> identify
> realistic maximum lengths. Updating RFC 3195 to have a greater length
> sh
Hi,
The Chairs have been discussing this already. We have a candidate to
write the update. The length limit in RFC 3195 was constrained by RFC
3164 and we have moved beyond that with the transport IDs which identify
realistic maximum lengths. Updating RFC 3195 to have a greater length
shou
