Hi all, thanks for all the great comments. Let me try to sum up the current concensus:
- multiple transport mappings are a good thing - it is at least helpful to have one required transport. Some do not really like this idea, but would tolerate it (correct me if I got this wrong!) - a required transport should be the simplest one to implement. For syslog, UDP (more or less as in RFC 3164) qualfies for this. Given that state of the discussion, I propose that we actually require each implementation that talks to a transport MUST support the to-be-written UDP transport mapping. While UDP has many inherant issues, it can at least serve as an easy-to-implement least common denominator if everything else fails. It can't be so totally bad as a vast amount of syslog currently runs over UDP. In fact, standards-compliant TCP syslog is rarely seen in today's reality. Now comes the issue if the UDP mapping should be a separate document or included in -protocol. There are good arguments for both. If we include the UDP transport mapping in -protocol, we gain: - a single, self-contained document that describes *all* essentials - this probably saves us some/much hassle during the IETF process If we include UDP transport mapping in a separate document, we gain: - a crystal-clear separation of the protocol layers - focussed security considerations, which can relief from ambiguity - the ability to develop the transport mapping and the core format independently Actually, it's a hard decision. I don't know which way offers more advantages. From my software engineering point of view, I am still in favour of a separate document for the UDP mapping. But it may not be worth the extra effort. Specifically, I am totally inexperienced what this additional hassle in the IETF process is and how costly (in terms of time) it will be. I would appreciate if those experienced with these issues could let me know their qualified votes. I would also like to know if someone violently objects either one of the two approaches. I am trying to settle this issue by Tuesday morning, just so that we have a chance to move forward in regard of our deadline. I would deeply appreciate any comments. If I don't receive strong votes, I will probably edit the document based on the concensus I have summarized AND will assume that the UDP transport mapping will be done in a separate document. Rainer
