RE: Where we're at - 25 Aug 2003

John and Jon have updated syslog-sign: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-syslog-sign-12.txt I believe that Albert suggested that more characters be added to the TAG field. He said that @ would be good. Are there any others that should be added in Section 2.2? I'd like to

Re: Where we're at - 25 Aug 2003

John and Jon have updated syslog-sign: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-syslog-sign-12.txt [[Grrr]]. Every time I continue on implementing draft-N, JJ come up with draft-N+1. I never catch up, that way :-) However, I will switch to draft-12 now. And will comment it as soon I

RE: Where we're at - 25 Aug 2003

Hi Rainer, On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Rainer Gerhards wrote: John and Jon have updated syslog-sign: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-syslog-sign-12.txt I believe that Albert suggested that more characters be added to the TAG field. He said that @ would be good. Are there

RE: Where we're at - 25 Aug 2003

PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Where we're at - 25 Aug 2003 Hi Rainer, On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Rainer Gerhards wrote: John and Jon have updated syslog-sign: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-syslog-sign-12.txt I believe that Albert suggested that more characters be added

Re: Where we're at - 25 Aug 2003

Hi Albert, On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John and Jon have updated syslog-sign: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-syslog-sign-12.txt [[Grrr]]. Every time I continue on implementing draft-N, JJ come up with draft-N+1. I never catch up, that way :-) IDs get