[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ] > Rainer: > > Just my 2 cents... > > I am not in favor of informational RFC describing some behavior "as > seen in the wild". If you want to create a standard - that's a different > matter. But an informational RFC just clouds the water because it makes > an appearance of describing a standard, while not really making any > standard.
Good, so you don't have any technical problems with doing it. > This has been a point of major confusion around syslog RFC 3164, for > example. I have personally had to explain over and over to a lot of > engineers/managers that it is not a standard and "compliant" > implementation can send petty much anything yet claim consistency with > that RFC. That's what you end up with when you don't have strict > requirements in the RFC. Have you also mentioned to your engineers/managers that all of the Cisco devices, for years and years, were RFC 3164 compliant ? Or that this RFC documents an otherwise undocumented protocol that they have been implementing for years ? What you're describing are organisation problems and not the domain of this working group to solve. Darren _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
