Rainer, The comments are inline. Rainer Gerhards wrote: > Hi Glenn, > > Good catch - I wonder why we overlooked this all the time. The term > "Originator" is even never defined although it is used in the document. > I guess that's something for IETF last call. Will add it to the list. > What actually was meant is > > * An application that *sends* a syslog message is called a "sender" > [UPDATE] > * The initial sender of a syslog message is called an "originator" [NEW] > > With these definitions, a relay is necessarily a sender (even though it > just forwards messages) but it is not necessarily an originator. > > Does this clarify? Does the rest of the WG agree to this propsed change? I agree. We have basically have Senders, Receivers and Relays. Some Senders are Originators and some Receivers are Collectors. A Relay can forward messages. It is a Sender and a Receiver. That looks neat. > > Rainer
Glenn > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Glenn M. Keeni [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 7:05 AM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: [Syslog] Doubts on definitions >> >> Hi, >> >> I am trying to understand the defnitions of syslog-proto. >> >> Is "sender" the complement of "receiver" or "collector" ? >> >>> The following definitions are used in this document: >>> o An application that can generate a syslog message is called a >>> "sender". >> Is "sender" same as "originator" ? >> In other words, since >>> o An application that can receive syslog messages and >> forward them >>> to another receiver is called a "relay". >> A "relay" is not necessarily a "sender" ( unless it generates messages >> too) ? >> >> >> >> Glenn >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Syslog mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog >> > _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
