Re: [Syslog] #5 - character encoding (was: Consensus?)

Rainer I think I detect an approach I do not agree with, in this and perhaps other issues. You seem to be saying that the (eg POSIX) syslogd must emit perfect syslog messages and is responsible for anything that is wrong with them no matter what it received from the application (I exaggerate

Re: [Syslog] #7 field order

I was thinking that PRI is also not optional. Tom Petch - Original Message - From: Rainer Gerhards [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 10:06 AM Subject: RE: [Syslog] #7 field order I just got private mail if a missing field is denoted by -. This

RE: [Syslog] Revised proposed charter

Hi, It would be a good thing to enumerate in the charter the select set of mechanisms to be standardized and included in the charter deliverables by the charter deadlines. That would severely limit any possibility of mission creep, something this group needs to constrain. I am concerned about

[Syslog] Forward compatibility

Rainer wrote: I am an IETF freshman. Anyhow, I often read that the IETF was driven by rough consensus and running code. I say was, because my impression is that this is no longer the case. I would prefer it were... While the IETF has increased its theoretical discussions, I think a major part of

RE: [Syslog] #2, max message size - Need to resolve this

I agree. The syslog-transport-udp-06 draft says this regarding maximum size: This protocol supports transmission of syslog messages up to 65535 octets in size. This limit stems from the maximum supported UDP payload of 65535 octets specified in the RFC 768 [1]. I see no need of restricting it

RE: [Syslog] Consensus on Charter?

Hi Darren, I suggest you work with some other implementors of TCP-based syslog to write a TCP transport mapping I-D that can be considered as the starting point for future WG work, if the current work ever gets completed. At a minimum, the document could probably be published as Informational.

RE: [Syslog] Forward compatibility

David, I agree with your argument. My point (obviously not properly conveyed) was that I would prefer if *new* efforts would be turned into running code and the lessons learned be applied to the drafts. While implementing, you detect a lot of inconsistencies... Rainer -Original

RE: [Syslog] #7 field order

Hi, Can you please ask those who are sending you private messages to make their points on the mailing list, as is appropriate for IETF WG discussions? dbh -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rainer Gerhards Sent: Wednesday, November 30,

RE: [Syslog] #7 field order

David, Can you please ask those who are sending you private messages to make their points on the mailing list, as is appropriate for IETF WG discussions? That's what I typically do. But what if they are not willing to do that and the point is important? Rainer

RE: [Syslog] #7 field order

Anton, Thanks for the clarification. Your wording is correct. SD-ID will also have - to indicate that it is undefined, which in this case actually means there is none. Rainer -Original Message- From: Anton Okmianski (aokmians) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 01,

RE: [Syslog] #2, max message size - Need to resolve this

Hi Rainer, You're the document author - you decide. I'm the WG Chair and my job is to make sure that the work continues. I think that we all would like for the document to be crisp, clear and to the point. Thanks, Chris On Thu, 1 Dec 2005, Rainer Gerhards wrote: Chris, Wouldn't