> see note above. Do you recommend we should actually make > English an requirement?
I think that would be a mistake. For a vendor, e.g. a Chinese vendor, who produces switches that are sold only to the Chinese market, whose customers speak primarily Chinese and have limited English skills, forcing implementers to hire translators to translate their syslog messages into English and USASCII, and forcing their customers to hire translators to translate the syslog messages back into Chinese so they can understand them is simply stupid. We should make the character set UTF-8, not USASCII, so the whole world can send messages in the language that best suits their customers' environments. For many of those environments, English will be the language of choice because it is widely used in the IT world. But we should not force vendors to implement in languages that are inapprorpriate for their audiences. If we want to force standardization, let's focus on the message content rather than standardizing the language the proprietary content is expressed in. David Harrington [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
