Sounds more like one for the netconf WG, where XML is king, backwards compatability is not an issue, messages can be orders of magnitudes larger, security is inherent etc etc. The only downside is that work on notifications/events has only just started but one school of thought is that it should be syslog-like.
What you want could be to netconf as private.enterprises is to SNMP. Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Moehrke, John (GE Healthcare)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Darren Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 4:02 PM Subject: RE: [Syslog] RE: Message format I don't think we are asking for anything specific. The XML payload (RFC 3881) is text, and somewhat human readable. We went with XML payload because we have well defined object identifiers that have been standardized and used throughout the hospital by many different systems provided by many different vendors. These identifiers cover data objects, patients, doctors, equipment, drugs, orders, etc... Taking this nicely coded information and putting it into a unformatted string seemed very counter. The XML string is descriptive enough that simple string parsing works, but is also well defined so that XML parsing can be done as well. What I am trying to do is figure out if the charter for this group is really to force the payload to be a human readable text string, or if the payload can include an XML formatted event description. We do not need binary. We do not need Mega-Byte MTUs. We really have tried to fit within the requirements that we understood syslog to have. We (healthcare) want to do what we do best (treat patients), and leave you (syslog) community to what you do best. We don't want to analyze/report/alert/etc on security events, we expect you are experts in this field. It is a shame to see this get in the way of an opportunity for both of us. John > -----Original Message----- > From: Darren Reed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 8:09 AM > To: Moehrke, John (GE Healthcare) > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Rainer Gerhards; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Syslog] RE: Message format > > > To all, > > > > The view that syslog must only be used to transport "human readable > > syslog messages" is disturbing. Is this the view of the syslog > > community? > > At present what we're concerned with is a logging facility that does > generate and consume human readable messages. > > At some point in the future, when we have agreement on the human > readable version, then we can consider what to do with messages > that aren't human readable. > > So while I accept your assertion, addressing it is out of scope for > the current discussion. We have smaller fish to fry, first, before > attempting the big ones. Trying to solve "all the problems" is what > got this group into the situation we are in now. We need to take a > step back and focus on resolving smaller and more well defined > problems before looking at a "grand unified logging protocol" (GULP). > > Nothing lasts forever, not even standards. > > Darren > _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
