> Hi WG, > > I have received notes via private mail telling me there seem to be some > existing (and eventually soon upcoming) valid use cases for binary data > in syslog. I think there is no point in arguing whether that's fortunate > or not. It simply looks like that's the way it is. I do not like the > idea of breaking existing use cases for syslog (because that will only > lead to implementors ignoring the spec and the story of syslog > inconsistencies continues...). As such, I think we need to provide at > least some minimal support for it (aka "not outlaw it"). ..
This is the wrong approach to take. Furthermore, if 3164 is anything to go by, conveying of control characters by the existing protocol is not well documented at present. I think it is incumbant upon the WG to convey the message to implementors that while it will listen to their needs and plans for implementation, it is not up to them to choose which way this group proceeds merely because they decide to provide a particular implementation. .. > Chris proposal for #5 (character encoding) also provides an elegant > solution for binary data. We can use something like: > > [enc="binary"] > > or > > [enc="base-64"] > > I do NOT intend to specify this - I think it should be in the scope of a > separate document specifying the use of binary data. Then would also be > the right time to discuss all issues that arise out of it. For now, I > just would like to keep the door open. > > Finally, I propose to extend Chris format so that the message size can > be conveyed. This has been brought up several times and I think a clean > solution is now obvious: > > [enc="utf-8" lang="en" size="MSG-size-in-octets"] > > MSG-size-in-octets would be the size of the MSG part (just that!) in > octets. Counting just the MSG part is sufficient, as the rest of the > message consists of fields properly delimited. The size is probably most > useful for binary data. What happens if the message is truncated? What value is the message size really providing here? If we have a natural EOR marker, LF, what do we need the size for? Given that a syslog message is a single record, I don't believe that it makes any sense to include a "size" parameter. Darren _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
