Darren, I fully agree with you. My understanding is that John just needs to transmit text in the MSG part which co-incidently "looks like" XML It must, however, a bit longer than 1K, which is backed by the current state of discussion. I, too, strongly object mandating XML or anything else formatted in a specific way (other than structured data). I have begun to become very sceptic about RFC 3195 (again, I have implemented it). I think we need to very carefully evaluate it *after* we have finished the base work.
BTW: my recent findings about the total incompatibility of various well-deployed implementations are a strong point that we need to standardize the basic format. But just what the bare essentials - and the quicker, the better. Already a lot of time has passed. Rainer > -----Original Message----- > From: Darren Reed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 4:44 PM > To: Rainer Gerhards > Cc: Moehrke, John (GE Healthcare); Darren Reed; > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Syslog] RE: Message format > > > I think this is a valid use case. Syslog traditionally has not only > > focussed on network management but has always been used for > > application-layer event notifications. I think what John asks for is > > within our charter and doesn't even require any change to > what we have > > been discussing so far. > > So long as XML in the message can be satisfied by saying it is part > of the "MSG" section, then yes. I don't believe there are any planned > restrictions on what the text content of "MSG" can be. > > Otherwise we're just going back down the road of 3195. > > If John wanted to see XML in syslog formalised, then my vote would for > it to be a follow on draft that documented a particular SD-ID as the > means for indicating the MSG was expected to be XML. > > But I cannot emphasise strongly enough that it is not appropriate for > this group to take on syslog and XML, beyond what exists in 3195, at > the present time. We need to focus on the charter and achieve a basic > set of goals first before moving on to things like this. This isn't > to say that it won't be addressed, but not here and now. If this puts > you, John, in uncertain land for the time being then I think that has > to just be accepted with an understanding that it can be redressed at > some point in the future, even if it doesn't make our current charter. > > Darren > _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
