agree on resolved, but something for the security considerations: RFC 3195 collectors may have severy issues if the packet is oversized. I will try with my implementation, but this could lead to a stalling connection.
Rainer > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Lonvick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 4:28 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Issue 8: Length of syslog messages - RESOLVED > > > Issue 8: Length of syslog messages > http://www.employees.org/~lonvick/draft-ietf-syslog-sign-12.ht > ml#format > > From the Archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/syslog-sec%40employees.org/msg01118.html > http://www.mail-archive.com/syslog-sec%40employees.org/msg01119.html > http://www.mail-archive.com/syslog-sec%40employees.org/msg01120.html > > > STATUS: Resolved that > 1) senders should try to keep packets within the 1024octet limit. > (Address this in the Security Considerations section?) > > 2) receivers shouldn't panic if they are given a packet greater than > 1024 octects. > (Again, address this in the Security Considerations section?) > > 3) Very long messages may be separated into multiple syslog packets > and it would be nice if they were numbered so they could be > reassembled without having to look at the timestamp. That will > not be addressed in syslog-sign but Rainer will take a look at it > for inclusion in syslog-international or a subsequent document. > > From the Archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/syslog-sec%40employees.org/msg01249.html > http://www.mail-archive.com/syslog-sec%40employees.org/msg01252.html > http://www.mail-archive.com/syslog-sec%40employees.org/msg01253.html > http://www.mail-archive.com/syslog-sec%40employees.org/msg01254.html > http://www.mail-archive.com/syslog-sec%40employees.org/msg01255.html > http://www.mail-archive.com/syslog-sec%40employees.org/msg01256.html > http://www.mail-archive.com/syslog-sec%40employees.org/msg01257.html > http://www.mail-archive.com/syslog-sec%40employees.org/msg01257.html > > >
