----- Original Message ----- From: "Rainer Gerhards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Tom Petch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Darren Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 9:32 AM Subject: RE: [Syslog] Sec 6.1: Truncation
Tom, I agree there are some issues with truncation, but I think they are inherent. We have specified that the message should be truncated at the end of the message. In the text I proposed, I wanted to make sure that the message ends with a technically-complete UTF-8 sequence. Based on Anton's comment, I have to admit I am unsure if there is really benefit in this. Anyhow, even if it is, I think we should not try to preserve the proper meaning. If the message is truncated, the end of it is in doubt. This might also mean a few characters at the end might be wrongly interpreted due to truncated control characters. I think we should document it and live with it (but it was important to bring this issue up so that it can be documented). Any comments? Thanks, Rainer Rainer Yes, I had in mind only to add a sentence which, assuming we end up with truncation in mid text, points out the two issues, that truncating on a octet boundary may result in incomplete UTF-8 encodings, and that truncating on the boundary of a UTF-8 encoding may result in an incomplete composite character (a brief foray into the UCS website suggests that that is the appropriate term) Tom Petch <snip> _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
