I second Jeurgen's analysis. I'd like to understand a technical argument (if there is any) for requiring that extra bit of logic and creating a potential for errors.
Anton. -----Original Message----- From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 2:45 AM To: Miao Fuyou Cc: syslog@lists.ietf.org Subject: Re: [Syslog] Framing in syslog-transport-tls On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 05:54:28PM +0800, Miao Fuyou wrote: > My co-workers in university also encountered this issue when > implementing syslog-tls, and used a mechanism similiar to the one of > Rainer to overcome it. As I am aware of, currently there are two > syslog framing implementation and both the implementaters considered > this boundary condition. So, my perception is careful implementater > would have no problem, and a note for reminding is enough. The fact that two implementars did already run into this is a good indication that perhaps the format should be changed to what implementors expect and find easier. We seem to have some evidence that the current format makes things more complex to get implemented than it needs to be and I have not seen yet a technical argument in favor of the current format. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder {International|Jacobs} University Bremen <http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/> P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany _______________________________________________ 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
