I think there is general agreement to specify minimum msg size, not maximum msg size in syslog-protocol.
Concerning the transport, the same should hold true. I could see that there may be cases in which a transport might specify a minimum msg size that is larger than the one in syslog protocol (so, if syslog protocol is used over a certain transport, message size may be larger than what would be mandated by syslog protocol itself). I don't see that you should mandate to define a max message size for the same reasons we wouldn't define it in syslog-protocol itself. Why unnecessarily impose constraints when you don't have to? In other words, just define min sizes that implementations are obliged to support, but don't prevent them from supporting more if they want to. Just my $0.02. --- Alex -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew Ross Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 2:41 PM To: Chris Lonvick (clonvick); [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Syslog] #2, max message size - Need to resolve this My vote is for the way Rainer has worded it now. Specify the minimum msg size in syslog-protocol and define max message size in the transport documents. Cheers Andrew Hi Folks, We need to resolve this one. I've heard from Rainer and a very few others. I'd like to hear from more people on this. Choose one: __ The maximum message length needs to be defined in syslog-protocol. __ The maximum message length should be defined in the transport documents. __ I have a different idea.... Please VOTE NOW! Thanks, Chris _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
