No,we have not called for interopo with 3164. As there are very few 3164 "compliant" (not a standard) implementation, we can not find any common ground. Even more essential, 3164 is purely UDP, so there is no such thing as a 3164 "compliant" tcp sender. I agree, however, that -transport-tls can easily be used together with existing syslog/tls implementations if we use LF (and no octet count). It then comes down to what is described in syslog-protocol for interop with existing implementations.
This is why I would prefer that mode. Rainer > -----Original Message----- > From: Anton Okmianski (aokmians) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 2:10 PM > To: Nagaraj Varadharajan (nagarajv); [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Syslog] delineated datagrams > > I thought we were targeting the TLS transport to the new > syslog-protocol, not the current informational RFC 3164. > There are some > considerations in the charter for partial syslog-protocol > compatibility > with RFC 3164. But I don't think we have called for the new > transport to > necessarily work with RFC 3164, did we? > > Does this need to be a requirement or can the implementations > that wish > to support both provide features to transition clients from one to > another? > > Thanks, > Anton. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Nagaraj Varadharajan (nagarajv) > > Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 3:51 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: [Syslog] delineated datagrams > > > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
