Hi,
This is an issue that we need to discuss. I've had some discussions with
various people on this subject who's opinions I trust. They also suggest
that we do have 2 options as Rainer states. Let me describe this in a bit
more detail:
The consensus from all is that syslog-protocol should not explain how to
have multiple syslog messages in each packet. That should be done in each
of the transport documents so that transport mechanisms can frame the
messages. This ensures a good fit if syslog is placed into a new
transport that already has a framing mechanism. This is how it has been
done in RFC 3195.
As Rainer says, we can reserve a character or characters to separate
messages. We could use ASCII characters such as CRLF or we could use a
UTF8 character. See:
http://www.unicode.org/faq/utf_bom.html and
http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr14/index.html
This would require that we place a very strong message in the Security
Considerations section of each transport document that would warn against
an inappropriate use of the separator character(s). For example, if CRLF
is chosen as the separator, the receiver may get a message with a CRLF in
it that does not signify a separation of messages. This will probably go
away with time as more poeple adopt to the standard.
Alternatively, we could count bytes to show the end of a message. The
receiver would count to that point and decide if there is another message
after that. Having this option would not require any additional messages
in the Security Considerations section as there would be no doubt about
the end of a message.
I want to open this discussion to the group. If we can agree to some
mechanism then we'll get Anton, Fuyou and Yuzhi to put this into their
IDs.
I will say that the WG is not addressing the transport of binary messages
at this time. However, I know that it's a concern of this group and I
would hope that the people who think about this take that thought into
consideration when they send in their comments.
Thanks,
Chris
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Rainer Gerhards wrote:
Miao,
thanks for the great (and quick) work. I can not review it fully right
now, but I have seen one issue that I would like to comment immediately
on. More comments follow later.
[Issue 3] The problem of CR LF is it can not process binary data
well. How to process Syslog signature/certificate message?
With the current status of syslog-protocol, you can NOT do
octet-stuffing. The reason is that any character is valid inside MSG and
this includes the CR LF sequence.
So we have two options:
1. change -protocol to disallow CR LF
2. use byte-counting for framing in -tls
Option 1 has been discussed in the past and mostly been rejected.
However, this is the first time that we have a real standardization use
case for excluding it. Currently existing (non-standard) syslog/TCP uses
CR LF (or lone LF) as record delimiter. So it might be useful to take
that route.
Option 2 has the advantage of greater aplicability plus enables the
application developer to use more efficient buffering (as the needed
buffer space is known in advance).
I have no strong opinion which option is better, but I tend a little bit
to option 2.
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
