That's a good suggestion. A little less efficient, but that's probably not an issue. I prefer this to a small limit.
Anton. > -----Original Message----- > From: Rainer Gerhards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 10:53 AM > To: Balazs Scheidler > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Framing in syslog messages - > RE:[Syslog]Preliminarysyslog-transport-tls document - issue 3 > > Bazsi, > > > Agreed, let's go for octet-counting. How would that look like? Two > > octets before every message? That would limit message size > to 64k, is > > that sufficient? (I personally say it is, messages larger than 64k > > would potentially mean that they cannot be held in memory) > > there is the good, old size issue resurfacing. I'd say let's > not get on that slippery slope again. The compromise so far > is - you can use any size as long as the receiver permits it. > I'd say we should stick with it. That means we should > probably also stick with the ASCII-only Space delimited > header. So the transport header would be something like this > > TLS-HEAD = OCTCOUNT SP > OCTCOUNT = 1* DIGIT > > Two practical samples would be > > "140 <rest of syslog message" > > or > > "256000 <rest of syslog message" > > The later is an intentionally horrible long message. But > again, I'd leave this door open. > If the receiver thinks 256000 octets is too large, it can > read the first 64k and drop the rest. > Rainer > > _______________________________________________ > Syslog mailing list > [email protected] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog > _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
