On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 14:25 -0800, Chris Lonvick wrote: > 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.
The only argument for CRLF is its use in current (non-standard) syslog/tcp implementations (syslog-ng, PIX, NetScreen, Adiscon, etc.). If I'd start from scratch I would also use some kind of byte-count based framing. I'm also undecided :) How would that framing look like? Binary or text? Would we limit the size of the frame length (effectively limiting the frame size itself)? How about adding some kind of application layer acknowledgement support? What this boils down in my mind is: do we get any additional benefits from using a more complex framing, as opposed to using CRLF for this purpose which is filtered out from logfiles anyway? I see the following possible upsides of using some kind of framing: * byte-counted messages, effectively allowing the use of the full character set * application layer acknowledgements, avoid losing messages sitting in the TCP socket buffers without knowing that they were not really sent. * control messages * multiplexed channels The question is which ones do we want to implement and how this correlates with the previous work on BEEP. -- Bazsi _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
