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

(alex) Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 9:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Chris Lonvick (clonvick); [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Syslog] #2, max message size - Need to resolve this I think there is general agreement to specify minimum msg size, not maximum msg size in syslog-protocol

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

: Thursday, December 01, 2005 8:36 PM To: David B Harrington Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Syslog] #2, max message size - Need to resolve this Hi David, On Thu, 1 Dec 2005, David B Harrington wrote: Hi Chris, You have framed the question incorrectly. That became evident when people

RE: [Syslog] #2, max message size

PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 6:13 PM To: Rainer Gerhards; Darren Reed Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Syslog] #2, max message size Shouldn't the MTU be defined by the binding to the transport? I fail to see why the protocol, unbound to a transport, needs to have a limit

RE: [Syslog] #2, max message size

: Moehrke, John (GE Healthcare) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 6:13 PM To: Rainer Gerhards; Darren Reed Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Syslog] #2, max message size Shouldn't the MTU be defined by the binding to the transport? I fail to see why

RE: [Syslog] #2, max message size

Darren: If you really want to get back to basics, I'd not accept any maximum message size that was bigger than 490 bytes (576-14-64-8) as this is the largest frame size that IPv4 is *required* to reassemble. Either you remove the maximum message size from syslog-protocol or drop it to

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

I vote for a different idea... As in latest syslog-protocol, define only the minimum message size the receivers is required to accept. I vote for defining it in both. Syslog-protocol defines the least common agreed upon denominator. Transport defines the minimum that is appropriate for the

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

) Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 12:15 PM To: Chris Lonvick (clonvick); [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Syslog] #2, max message size - Need to resolve this I vote for a different idea... As in latest syslog-protocol, define only the minimum message size the receivers is required to accept

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

PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Syslog] #2, max message size - Need to resolve this I agree with Anton's wording and view. Instead of capping the size maximally that a syslog receiver is to support, it should be the minimum size that it should support. Steve -Original Message- From

RE: [Syslog] #2, max message size

: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Syslog] #2, max message size John, the issue is the simplex nature of syslog. With syslog (other than with almost all other protocols), you send a message and need to *hope* that the recipient can receive it. There is also no negotiation phase. So

RE: [Syslog] #2, max message size

. ;) Rainer John -Original Message- From: Rainer Gerhards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 11:37 AM To: Moehrke, John (GE Healthcare) Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Syslog] #2, max message size John, the issue is the simplex

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

I think there is general agreement to specify minimum msg size, not maximum msg size in syslog-protocol. FWIW, I think this is a much better idea. Darren ___ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog