> > > WG, > > > <PRI>VERSION TIMESTAMP HOSTNAME APP-NAME PROCID [SD-ID]s MSG > > > > I would put the SD-IDs after the message. > > This raises the question of what terminates the MSG part ;)
Using the above syntax, how do you distinguish between [] at the start of the message from actualy SD-ID data? I think what's missing from the above, is a ':' and the syntax should be: <PRI>VERSION TIMESTAMP HOSTNAME APP-NAME PROCID [SD-ID]: MSG The protocol document needs to outlaw ':' being in any field before the MSG. If you mark "VERSION", "PROCID" and "SD-ID" data as all being optional then the format comes back to being very close to what's in use today. > That would > mean we would need to introduce byte-counting, at least I think so. Well, without the ':' to say where the MSG starts, I'd have argued "How do you tell where SD-ID ends and MSG starts?" vs there just being a string of bad SD-ID data following some good SD-ID data. As for "but the SD has important information and the MSD does not", that's simply a matter of how you structure the message. > > > - replace NUL with an escape sequence upon reception (e.g. <00>) > > > > Why not \0 ? > > That's another good choice. It's also how data gets escaped, in general, in Internet stuff. > That was my main message. Is it better to live > with that or introduce a CLR on not allowing NUL? I'd like to see NUL outlawed from messages. Darren _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
