Hi All,
This sounds good and I believe that we have had a reasonable discussion of
all of the options. Unless there are strong objections, I'll ask Fuyou
and Yuzhi to incorporate this into their document.
Thanks,
Chris
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, Balazs Scheidler wrote:
On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 17:43 +0100, Rainer Gerhards wrote:
Chris,
while I think this sounds very tempting, I also think there are some
inherent problems with it:
#1 you do not know *where* (more precise: after how many octets) that
element is present
In extreme cases, it might only be valid after more then 64k
#2 it could become truncated
Structured data is not guarded against truncation.
#3 architectural concerns
I do not think it is appropriate for a lower layer to obtain information
from an upper-layer field. That would require the lower layer to parse
the upper layer field, which it conceptionally should not even be aware
of.
All in all, I am in strong favour of a dedicated tls-transport only
header for the octet count.
Absolutely agree and I also like the text based format.
--
Bazsi
_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
