Chris, I will reply to your actual questions with a later message. But I have a concern that is far prior to even the questions.
We have been working 2+ years on syslog-protocol and syslog-transport-udp. We had hard discussions. It looked we reached concensus on the mailing list. Then, in the meeting, non-concensus was found. It looks like we have a big discrepancy between what is said on the mailing list and what is said in meetings. I think we need to tackle that *issue* first. Why are we pushing for more and more changes on the mailing list, just to abandon things when they come close to being finished. To get me right: I have no really bad feelings about the way things have evolved (though I have to admit that it is hard to accept that 2+ years of work are being abandoned in 30 minutes - but that is life and it is better to abandon things than to create things that nobody uses [hint: rfc 3195;)]. I only fear that we will work another 2+ years, just to arrive where we are right now. If we do not solve the discrepancy between on-list and off-list concensus, anything we do can strongly be questioned. So my big question is: how did this come? Was there a totally different set of people in the meeting (I noticed some quite uninformed comments in the notes)? Were these folks on the list and just not speaking up? What can we do to prevent this in the future? Please speak up NOW if you are just lurking ;) If we can not solve the discrepancy, it may be worth considering doing only one change at a time on-list, then wait for the next meeting, then do the next change. This might take us three years to complete whatever we like to complete - but if we had started that initially, we would only be some months away from finishing now. So the slow approach might be the right one. Again, this is no bashing - I am just deeply concerned on the way things have evolved and how we can prevent this in the future. Rainer > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Lonvick > Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 6:17 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Syslog] Charter revision > > Hi Folks, > > I'd like to start the discussion of revising our charter. We > will need to > address various parts of this. > > 1 - At the meeting, it was clear that many people thought > that we should > be building on the accepted syslog header. > > A) Should the WG accept that the observed syslog header > format is good > enough and we should build on top of that? (We can RECOMMEND > a better > timestamp and a few other features but we will not REQUIRE anything.) > > B) Should the WG define a standard header still based upon > <PRI>Timestamp... ? > > > > 2 - Sam recommended that the WG consider a secure transport - > or have an > explanation of why we don't have one. One option would > be to allow > syslog-tranport-udp to progress at this point while we > decide upon > (1) above. > > Yes/No ) Should the WG let syslog-transport-udp progress without > syslog-protocol at this time? > > Yes/No ) Should the WG consider another secure substrate (in > addition to > RFC3195)? [Any of SSH, SSL, dtls, etc.] > > > > Please respond to this. Additional comment will be > appreciated. Based > upon what I hear back, I'll start drafting a revised charter. > > Thanks, > Chris > > _______________________________________________ > Syslog mailing list > Syslog@lists.ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog > _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
