On Sun, Dec 24, 2006 at 08:08:12PM +0100, tom.petch wrote:
>
> My sense is that your analysis of the protocols is
> syslog
> encapsulation
> transport
> somewhat RFC3411-like so we might have an enumeration for
> encapsulation, one (or more) for transport and problem solved. I am
> saying that the structure (architecture/layers) is not like that (no
> dbh:-), that we have 'tls/tcp/IANA port' all tied up in a bundle
> together, take it or leave it.
I tried to clarify in a constructive way the purpose of InetAddress
and friends and TransportAddress and friends. You seem to suggest to
use some syslog specific SyslogDomain/SyslogAddress (but you don't
spell things out so you leave me guessing).
> Were we ever to do anything different in future, most likely it
> would be a another package, perhaps SSH/TCP/different IANA port or
> TCP per se, so the decomposition you imply does not make sense to
> me.
There is a transport endpoint involved in SSH/TCP and some sort of
encapsulation - so I do not really see what breaks.
/js
--
Juergen Schoenwaelder {International|Jacobs} University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/> P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany
_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
