Carson, Legacy code does not contain LF in messages. It is advised that new-style syslog also does not contain control characters (though it now is allowed).
Thus the argument is valid. Again, I do not object octet-couting (I actually introduced the idea ;)) but find it the second best-solution. Maybe we should do a simple poll - some have already voiced their choices... Rainer > -----Original Message----- > From: Carson Gaspar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 1:33 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Syslog] RE: byte-counting vs special character > > Escaping precludes no-configuration backwards compatibility, > as no legacy > syslog-over-tcp code does escaping. So if you want to > interoperate with > existing code, you must have a "don't escape or expect > escapes" switch in > your code. If you're going to do that, just have a "LF mode > vs byte-count > mode" switch. This whole backwards compat argument is bogus, > iff we decide > to escape embedded LF instead of forbidding it. And I have yet to see > anyone argue for LF on any grounds except backwards compatibility. > > -- > Carson > > _______________________________________________ > 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
