On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 11:51:13AM -0700, Chris Lonvick wrote: > Which brings us back to our original question. Is the proposed language > below what the WG wants?
As an implementor, I have a problem with the statement syslog senders MUST use UDP checksums when sending messages over IPv4 since on several platforms, I simply can't ensure this when I write a portable SYSLOG implementation. So I can either claim my code to be RFC compliant while in a real deployment it might not behave conforming to the RFC (depending on the kernel settings for example), or I tell the truth that I can never guarantee compliant behaviour of my implementation. So if we need to have language at all, what about syslog senders MUST NOT disable UDP checksums This is something I can implement much more easily since the default seems to be enabled on those platforms I am familiar with. ;-) Or alternatively go back to SHOULD syslog senders SHOULD use UDP checksums when sending messages over IPv4 with the likely non-obvious interpretation that you should enable / not disable checksums in your code but if the kernel bites you, you are still fine. My point is that if we put out requirements for implementations, lets do this in a way that a coder can reasonably implement them. /js [No, I am not implementing SYSLOG right now - but I am familiar with other protocols running over UDP and hence this got my attention.] -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
