Hi all, > If I get the essence in Darren's message right, > what he is proposing is to create a layered architecture for syslog.
Yes, by using what's gone before us as the way to start doing that. > Please face it: on the WG mailing list, we are pressing for ever and > ever change. More and more new things. At least in the last meeting, we > are trying to conserve as much as possible (which I personally like). > This won't go together. What I think the WG is lacking is a good long term focus of objectives. I believe this is largely because the group has been meandering along. I think we need to refocus by looking at where people are going with developing syslog protocols and evolve what exists today to meet that. > Obviously, I am not participating > in the meetings for a reason: I simply can not justify traveling around > the world for a 30 minute time slot even without a strong business case. > I thought that personal participance is not a absolute must in IETF work > (though I clearly understand its importance). Which is why those who attend the meetings are often involved in more than a single WG. .. > - we ignore running code and rough consenus existing in practice > (syslog/tcp) My hope is that if we pursue a layered approach will allow us to easily document a protocol that covers the existing practice in this area as well as provide a path for future design. > Please do not misunderstand me: of course, I am a bit frustrated about > that this WG has fundamental problems. I personally doubt it makes sense > to continue without solving them. Where I think we've gone wrong and I hear indications of "going wrong" are with people who want to solve their own pet problem - we've lost sight of the big picture. For example, the different message format to allow bit-banging for indicate this or that has happened to the message. For most people, it does nothing. As too with XML - I'm sure there is a large contingent of developers out there who balk at any document that mentions XML, even if its optional. I think the WG should remain and has a purpose. At the meeting Sam Hartman mentioned that we were going nowhere fast and in danger of being shut down. Apparently this isn't uncommon but I think that although there problems that they aren't beyond fixing. I think the key to achieving a good result has got to be thinking that it is ok to have lots of small documents rather than just one big document. If nothing else, it should make the work required to produce a single one down and therefore more attractive. Darren _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
