Hi. Thanks for the new draft.
There are a lot of changes in this version; it will definitely require a new ietf last call. I'd recommend that the WG evaluate the changes and ask whether at this stage in the process they are actually required. Perhaps they are. 1) You cannot use originator and sender in the same layering diagram if they are going to mean different things. May I suggest calling the entity a transport sender/transport receiver. 2) I question whether all three of sender/originator/formatter are needed. I recommend dropping formatter and perser, folding their behavior in somewhere else. You are misusing the terms (as an example, the following diff suggests that we care about the formatter's IP addresses not the originator's). I can believe that the formatter chooses the IP address, but I don't think it should choose one of its addresses if it is on a different machine than the originator. Misuse of terms from those defining the terms suggests that you have too many terms. + Formatters SHOULD consistently use the same value in the HOSTNAME + field for as long as possible. If the formatter uses IP addresses + inside hostname, the following rules apply: If the formatter is + multihomed, this value SHOULD be one of its actual IP addresses. If + a formatter is running on a machine that has both statically and + dynamically assigned addresses, then that value SHOULD be from the + statically assigned addresses. As an alternative, the formatter MAY + use the IP address of the interface that is used to send the message. If you keep formatter and parser, please for each use of originator, formatter, parser and collector explain why that is the correct term. 3) Why does this obselete 3164? That document describes a ifferent protocol. 4) Why was a.8 removed? _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
