Anton, > > I would like to turn to issue 8, that is structured data > > element placement. I have put together the (few) most > > important thoughts here: > > > > http://www.syslog.cc/ietf/protocol/issue8.html > > > > Anton proposed that we > > > > a) allow elements only in their own, well-defined field > > b) merge that with TAG > > > > I personally think a) is a good idea while I am very > > sceptical about b). I would >appreciate any more feedback > > on this issue. > > I was actually going to raise the issue of TAG field as > another issue if > we don't address it as part of this one. > > As you yourself indicated, we are not sure about the whole business of > static and dynamic parts of TAG and what it is supposed to be > used for. > I don't think we can allow such ambiguity in the -protocol. Whatever > this field is used for, it must be specified clearly IMO. > When I think > about what TAG field might be used for, I definitely see an > overlap with > structured content field in concept.
I just wanted to let everyone know that I am now tracking this as issue 16: http://www.syslog.cc/ietf/protocol/issue16.html The link above also contains pointers to two important past discussion threads. I suggest to review them while thinking over this issue. Rainer
