> To all, > > The view that syslog must only be used to transport "human readable > syslog messages" is disturbing. Is this the view of the syslog > community?
At present what we're concerned with is a logging facility that does generate and consume human readable messages. At some point in the future, when we have agreement on the human readable version, then we can consider what to do with messages that aren't human readable. So while I accept your assertion, addressing it is out of scope for the current discussion. We have smaller fish to fry, first, before attempting the big ones. Trying to solve "all the problems" is what got this group into the situation we are in now. We need to take a step back and focus on resolving smaller and more well defined problems before looking at a "grand unified logging protocol" (GULP). Nothing lasts forever, not even standards. Darren _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
