David, I agree on this point. But -transport-udp cross-references -protocol and -protocol must cross-reference -transport-tls (or whatever it will be named), so they must be sumbitted together even though there is no direct relationship between -transport-udp and -transport-tls.
Rainer > -----Original Message----- > From: David B Harrington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 2:12 PM > To: Rainer Gerhards; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Syslog] implementing -protocol and -transport-udp > > Hi, > > Just a point. -transport-udp and -transport-tls should be independent > of each other, since one is based on udp and the other on tcp. I just > want to be sure that is understood. > > -transport-udp and transport-tls should have a comparable interface to > the rest of the syslog documents. Do we agree on that point? > > David Harrington > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rainer Gerhards > > Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 2:46 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [Syslog] implementing -protocol and -transport-udp > > > > Hi all, > > > > it is nice to see us making progress. However, as we need to > > finish (and > > start) a secure transport before we can submit -protocol and > > -transport-udp, I have a question to the implementors here on > > the list. > > -transport-udp is basically finished and -protocol just needs > > a brush up > > (aka "hopefully soon finished"). I wonder if some folks would like > to > > implement these drafts, even before they are submitted (aka > > "soon" ;)). > > I see several advantages in doing so: > > > > - we get real-world experience about what is practical and > > what not - this enables us to create a better standard > > - we can do interop-testing between different implementations, > > again clarifying how good the text is > > - we prepare for rapid deployment once the draft has been > > submitted > > - we (and our users) can enjoy the benefits of the standardized > > format earlier > > - we have implementation reports at hand when the IESG asks about > > vendor and user acceptance > > > > Remember that both drafts are essentially ready for publication - > what > > is missing is "just" a secure transport, which does not interfere > with > > what we currently have. Of course, implementations could lead to new > > discussions and eventual changes to the draft. I think is is better > to > > have this now then when it is released. > > > > I already did a test implementation in rsyslog. It prooved to be > quite > > easy and quickly doable. If others agreee to implement it too, I > would > > go ahead and also see that we implement it in our commercial > packages. > > > > I hope that my proposal is a good one and that other > > implementors would > > like to participate. Please reply on list if you think this would be > a > > good idea or not. > > > > Many 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
