Hi Juergen,
> > The only thing that is special with syslog is that under one
> operating
> > system (*nix), there is a different architecture with syslogd. It's
> not
> > Windows that is different. It is the *nix implementation (at least
in
> my
> > point of view). The problem is that *nix is obviously the dominant
> > implementation and that many boxes use linux as "firmware". So this
> is
> > probably the root cause of the problem.
>
> I like to note that syslog was invented on Unix systems and hence I do
> consider the Unix way of doing syslog to be somehow authoritative. But
> we do not have to agree on this. ;-)
I agree that it is a strong point, thus I mentioned it. I am just saying
we can not REQUIRE everyone to do the same on other platforms. And again
we are talking on things not happening on the wire. But I think that's
just a minor issue ;)
>
> > I can offer to create a paper on the architecture of syslog in
> different
> > environments. I am still doubtful if such a description belongs into
> a
> > RFC. Maybe it is useful as an informational RFC. But again I think
we
> > can not *standardize* a software architecture. That does not make
> sense.
> > Different environments and different use cases require different
> > architectures.
>
> Dave Harrington's point is that you can't write a proper management
> interface (a MIB module) without first understanding the architecture
> of the thing you model in the management interface. And this is why
> syslog people have to help the SNMP people to get their MIB modules
> right. You are not asked to become an expert in SNMP/MIBs - all that
> is needed is that you can help draw up a model for a management
> interface that matches to ideally all existing syslog implementations.
> For that, such a paper would be indeed useful.
I understand this and this is why I offered to write such a paper. But
the question remains if such a description belongs into a normative RFC.
Remember that the current discussion was spawned when David requested
that the architecture section in syslog-protocol is unclear and needs to
be extended. So far, my humble view is that *program architecture* does
NOT belong into a RFC. But this may be my inexperience and I am open to
good arguments why it should be...
Rainer
>
> /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
