Sorry for jumping in late on this topic and also pardon me if I have not understood the discussion correctly.
My thought is that the easiest way syslog over tls will be implemented will be by existing apps taking what they have for syslog over TCP and adding the TLS layer. So in terms of easy implementation and adoption, it may be good to support whatever is being done for tcp syslogs now. I believe that LF as a separator is quite common currently. However, I do agree that this is a good opportunity to upgrade to a better method. My only concern is that this should not force applications to drastically change their underlying syslog implementations Regards, Nagaraj -----Original Message----- From: Rainer Gerhards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 9:22 PM To: Balazs Scheidler Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tom Petch Subject: RE: [Syslog] delineated datagrams > Maybe this already has been said ;) > > This makes sense. What about other control characters? > We need to differentiate between on-the-wire format and storage format. On-the-wire, I would escape only LF and the escape character. In storage, I would escape any control character (which can be quite tricky with Unicode). Our current scope (and IETF scope) is on-the-wire. So I propose not to mangle any more characters than absolutely necessary. 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
