Hi,
The Chairs have been discussing this already. We have a candidate to
write the update. The length limit in RFC 3195 was constrained by RFC
3164 and we have moved beyond that with the transport IDs which identify
realistic maximum lengths. Updating RFC 3195 to have a greater length
should not be a problem.
HOWEVER... We need to focus on syslog-sign and syslog-device-mib BEFORE
doing this. Once we get the shepherding documents for those IDs sent to
the IESG _THEN_ we can discuss 3195bis.
Thanks,
Chris
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006, Rainer Gerhards wrote:
Hi all,
now that we obsolete RFC 3164 by -syslog-protocol, the only remaining
RFC that is not compatible to the "new syslog series" is RFC 3195. The
questions is now how to proceed here? I am raising this issue because it
has some effect on syslog-sign. I would love to see 2k as limit for
sign-generated messages, but that means we need to talk about 3195
(which not explicitely supports messages over 1k).
IMHO, we should do a 3195bis that updates 3195 to work as a transport
mapping with syslog-protocol. After we've done that, we have finally
unified all syslog RFCs and do not have any more issues with
incompatibilities between them. I think this is something we should do
soon.
Comments?
Rainer
PS: I, too, would like to express my seasons greetings to all folks on
the list! May you have a great and peaceful xmas time and a good start
into the new year.
_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
