I was thinking that <PRI> is also not optional. Tom Petch
----- Original Message ----- From: "Rainer Gerhards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 10:06 AM Subject: RE: [Syslog] #7 field order I just got private mail if a missing field is denoted by "-". This is the case. Optional fields should be all but VERSION. Rainer > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rainer Gerhards > Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 9:37 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Syslog] #7 field order > > WG, > > there has not been much discussion about the header fields and their > order recently. I think this is a sign the issue has been settled. To > make sure I got the right understanding of the resulting consensus, I > propose that we use the following format: > > <PRI>VERSION SP TIMESTAMP SP HOSTNAME SP APP-NAME SP PROCID > SP MSGID SP > [SD-ID]s SP MSG > > That is the format that also proven to be quite useful during my > proof-of-concept implementation. > > If somebody objects, please do that now. > > Thanks, > Rainer > _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
