Consensus - was: Re: [Syslog] RFC 3164 in syslog-sign? (fwd)
Hi, Overwhelming consensus is that references to 3164 will be removed from syslog-sign. Alex, Please start working on this but don't submit any changes until after WGLC is complete on 28 Dec. All: Please continue to review the document and let's get this out the door. Thanks, Chris P.S. - Seasons Greetings to All and my very best wishes to everyone for a happy and prosperous New Year. :-) ___ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
RE: [Syslog] RFC 3164 in syslog-sign?
Option 2 may be a better choice for a cohesive set of Syslog specifications. And, a seperated informational document can be included as work item when rechartering to address the 3164 signature issue. Is it possible? The drawback is the implementer has to do something different for -protocol and 3164. Thanks, Miao -Original Message- From: Chris Lonvick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 10:20 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Syslog] RFC 3164 in syslog-sign? Hi, We started syslog-sign before we had Structured Data, and the original author was creating a mechanism that could be used within the RFC 3164 framework. However, times have changed. We now have syslog-protocol with SDs. Does the WG feel that syslog-sign should contain normative information on how to utilize the syslog-sign mechanism in the RFC 3164 format? Answers can be: __ Yes - leave it, it forms a bridge for transition, __ No - take it out, we need to move the world along, __ Maybe - move it to a non-normative appendix Thanks, Chris -- Forwarded message -- Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 15:51:25 +0100 From: Rainer Gerhards [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Chris Lonvick [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: APP-NAME, PROCID and MSGID in syslog sign - was: RE: [Syslog] clonvick WGLC Review of draft-ietf-syslog-sign-20.txt Chris, -Original Message- From: Chris Lonvick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 3:37 PM To: Rainer Gerhards Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: APP-NAME, PROCID and MSGID in syslog sign - was: RE: [Syslog] clonvick WGLC Review of draft-ietf-syslog-sign-20.txt ---some elided for brevity--- With RFC 3164 syslog, we obviously can not totally be assured that the SD-ID will be valid. But we should keep in mind that we most probably will try to obsolete 3164 either via -protocol or a follow-up RFC. I already questioned the point in supporting this (informational!) document in a new standard. Is this really a wise idea? Rainer ---remainder elided for brevity--- ___ 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
RE: [Syslog] RFC 3164 in syslog-sign?
Chris, I would prefer __ No - take it out, we need to move the world along, as this removes a lot of complexity and guesswork. It will also be cleaner if rfc3164 is actually obsoleted by -syslog-protocol. If that is not WG consensus, I would recommend __ Maybe - move it to a non-normative appendix As a formal note, I am not sure if we can create normative text based on a non-normative document (rfc 3164). This sounds kind of wrong to me... Rainer -Original Message- From: Chris Lonvick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 3:20 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Syslog] RFC 3164 in syslog-sign? Hi, We started syslog-sign before we had Structured Data, and the original author was creating a mechanism that could be used within the RFC 3164 framework. However, times have changed. We now have syslog-protocol with SDs. Does the WG feel that syslog-sign should contain normative information on how to utilize the syslog-sign mechanism in the RFC 3164 format? Answers can be: __ Yes - leave it, it forms a bridge for transition, __ No - take it out, we need to move the world along, __ Maybe - move it to a non-normative appendix Thanks, Chris -- Forwarded message -- Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 15:51:25 +0100 From: Rainer Gerhards [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Chris Lonvick [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: APP-NAME, PROCID and MSGID in syslog sign - was: RE: [Syslog] clonvick WGLC Review of draft-ietf-syslog-sign-20.txt Chris, -Original Message- From: Chris Lonvick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 3:37 PM To: Rainer Gerhards Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: APP-NAME, PROCID and MSGID in syslog sign - was: RE: [Syslog] clonvick WGLC Review of draft-ietf-syslog-sign-20.txt ---some elided for brevity--- With RFC 3164 syslog, we obviously can not totally be assured that the SD-ID will be valid. But we should keep in mind that we most probably will try to obsolete 3164 either via -protocol or a follow-up RFC. I already questioned the point in supporting this (informational!) document in a new standard. Is this really a wise idea? Rainer ---remainder elided for brevity--- ___ 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
