I wonder if others share my concern about the lack of robustness in the way in which datagrams are delineated in the stream protocol (a TCP rather than a TLS issue).
The system works as long as - the frame length is encoded perfectly - the frame length is decoded perfectly - no bytes are inserted or removed in error which is doubtless true in some networks, but I would prefer not to rely on it. So, when an error occurs, can the Collector/Relay detect it? Can the Collector/Relay recover synch? If not, what does the Collector/Relay do? There is very little redundancy in the definition of frame length, and syslog messages have very little structure to help the application, so I think that this is an issue we should address. Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "David B Harrington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 4:26 PM Subject: [Syslog] draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt Hi, A new revision of the syslog/TLS draft is available. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01 .txt We need reviewers. Can we get 1) a person to check the grammar? 2) a person to check the syslog technical parts? 3) a person to check compatibility with the other WG documents? 4) a person to check the TLS technical parts? We also need general reviews of the document by multiple people. Thanks, David Harrington co-chair, Syslog WG [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ 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
