> >From the notes I've been getting and the recent discussion on the > >mailing > list, I'd like to ask for a sanity check. > > > 1) Will you (or your organization) be transmitting or > receiving syslog messages using syslog-protocol as described > in the most recent ID?
I can't speak to any product road maps or any specifics, but let's just say I have a suspicion that a certain large networking device manufacturer will support syslog-protocol (sending) in majority of its devices by 2006. :) You may not be hearing lots of feedback on who is implementing this because not all companies like to issue press releases for things that are in development and may get de-committed if project priorities change. 3) Do you like the TIMESTAMP as defined in the current syslog-protocol ID? Yes. 4) Do you like the idea of using "structured data" as is currently described in syslog-protocol? Yes. A bit bulky names, but this concept is what's going to make this protocol shine down the road IMO. Now, people would be able to write *standard* log filters/viewers that can do meaningful things. Once people pick up on using this to produce useful structured data in their messages, I think it may change the whole logging landscape for the better. Imagine being able to zero-in on specific flow, device, transaction, component, message name, combination of them, etc. Overall, I think this protocol is a great step forward. From no standard at all to a great standard. Rainer has done a great job on this! I am optimistic about this RFC. Thanks, Anton. _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
