Hi, Can you please ask those who are sending you private messages to make their points on the mailing list, as is appropriate for IETF WG discussions?
dbh > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rainer Gerhards > Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 4:07 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
