Re: [Syslog] Re: DISCUSS in draft-ietf-syslog-protocol - congenstion control (fwd)

2007-07-18 Thread Eliot Lear
tom.petch wrote: "A second class of applications cannot maintain an RTT estimate for a destination, because the destination does not send return traffic. Such applications SHOULD NOT send more than one UDP message every 3 seconds, and SHOULD consider if they can use an even less aggressive rate w

Re: [Syslog] Re: DISCUSS in draft-ietf-syslog-protocol - congenstion control (fwd)

2007-07-18 Thread tom.petch
This topic may be being driven by draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-guidelines-02 by Eggert/Fairhurst. Worth a peruse; quoting out of context (is syslog bulk or not?), it contains such as "If an application or upper-layer protocol chooses not to use a congestion-controlled transport protocol, it SHOULD contr

RE: [Syslog] Re: DISCUSS in draft-ietf-syslog-protocol - congenstion control (fwd)

2007-07-12 Thread Anton Okmyanskiy \(aokmians\)
Chris: Can we ask Mangus to provide suggested text? He mentioned it is just a paragraph. This would make it a bit easier to get to the point of what/how he wants addressed and evaluate if we agree with it. If his suggested text is not too demanding on implementations, but rather a recommendation,

Re: [Syslog] Re: DISCUSS in draft-ietf-syslog-protocol - congenstion control (fwd)

2007-07-12 Thread Eliot Lear
Chris Lonvick wrote: Hi Folks, Here is clarification of what Magnus wants. We have so far received Eliot's proposal but I don't think that addresses the concern. I agree. My concern was downstream resources. Magnus' concern is the syslog "application". This is complex because there are