Chris, While I agree with you in principle that both forms of delineation are nice to have for interop, I _wish_ we could get rid of LF - that so limits the sort of data that can be sent in the message. My two cents...
John >>> Chris Lonvick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 8/4/2006 8:13 AM >>> Hi, I'd like to get this resolved and put into the next version of the draft. Many protocols use byte-counting for framing. Many protocols use a specific character as a delimiter. Do we need both? I think that I've seen notes from Rainer, Tom Petch, and Andrew Ross saying that we should only use a special character for both simplicity of design and for interoperability with current syslog/tls implementations. Are there other opinions on this? Please speak up now. Thanks, Chris On Mon, 24 Jul 2006, Miao Fuyou wrote: > > Hi, Rainer, > > Interop is a compelling reason for protocol design, so I tend to agree with > you that it is a feature nice to have. I am wondering whether we should > define procedures for frame delineating processing in syslog-tls draft > because we have both octect-counter and LF in a record. > > Miao > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Rainer Gerhards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 6:16 PM >> To: Miao Fuyou; Tom Petch; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: RE: [Syslog] delineated >> datagramswasdraft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt >> >> Miao, >> >> I agree with your comments. However, using the LF as a record >> delimited would still allow us to interop with existing >> syslog/tls implementations. This is my major point. I think >> it is worth it. >> >> Rainer >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Miao Fuyou [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 12:00 PM >>> To: 'Tom Petch'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Subject: RE: [Syslog] delineated >>> datagramswasdraft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt >>> >>> >>> TLS uses SHA-1 or MD5 in ciphersuite for message integrity >>> verification. If bytes lost happens during transferring, >> the message >>> will be dropped by TLS. >>> That is also the cause that we need a security mechanism >> for Syslog. >>> >>> As for error of encoding/decoding, I believe if an application does >>> encoding/decoding in a wrong way, you must not expect it do >> it right >>> with other mechanism, such as LF. >>> >>> Redundancy to improve robustness is good idea, but I don't >> think it >>> applies to this case. >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Tom Petch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 8:43 PM >>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> Subject: Re: [Syslog] delineated datagrams >>>> wasdraft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > _______________________________________________ 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
