> John and Jon have updated syslog-sign: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-syslog-sign-12.txt > > I believe that Albert suggested that more characters be added > to the TAG > field. He said that "@" would be good. Are there any others > that should > be added in Section 2.2? I'd like to get that resolved and > then move this > work along to WG Last Call and then submission to the IESG as it is > looking very complete now.
I am sorry to eventually come into your way, but a quick question to 3.4, the reboot session ID. My apologies if this already was discussed, but the WG mailing lists archive search did not work and I did not find a related post by browsing. -sign says, the reboot session ID mus not be automatically reset to 0 if it latches at 9999999999. I agree that this is a fairly big number. But think about a tool like logger. As of my understanding, each command-line invocation would create a new "reboot session". Now think of it being used for years.... I am not sure if we would eventually hit the high mark. On the other hand, it would take years to wrap back to 0. So is it really that bad to allow for automatic rollover? I am asking because I assume implementors would do it anyhow. Take my logger example: when coding this, would I really stop processing when I hit the highest number? I have to admit I would implement an automatic rollover, simply because I would eventually loose vital log data if I would not do it - which is in my point of view worse. Rainer
