I think this is a valid use case. Syslog traditionally has not only focussed on network management but has always been used for application-layer event notifications. I think what John asks for is within our charter and doesn't even require any change to what we have been discussing so far.
Rainer > -----Original Message----- > From: Moehrke, John (GE Healthcare) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 4:03 PM > To: Darren Reed > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Rainer Gerhards; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Syslog] RE: Message format > > I don't think we are asking for anything specific. The XML > payload (RFC > 3881) is text, and somewhat human readable. We went with XML payload > because we have well defined object identifiers that have been > standardized and used throughout the hospital by many > different systems > provided by many different vendors. These identifiers cover data > objects, patients, doctors, equipment, drugs, orders, etc... > Taking this > nicely coded information and putting it into a unformatted > string seemed > very counter. The XML string is descriptive enough that simple string > parsing works, but is also well defined so that XML parsing > can be done > as well. > > What I am trying to do is figure out if the charter for this group is > really to force the payload to be a human readable text string, or if > the payload can include an XML formatted event description. > > We do not need binary. We do not need Mega-Byte MTUs. We really have > tried to fit within the requirements that we understood > syslog to have. > We (healthcare) want to do what we do best (treat patients), and leave > you (syslog) community to what you do best. We don't want to > analyze/report/alert/etc on security events, we expect you are experts > in this field. It is a shame to see this get in the way of an > opportunity for both of us. > > John > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Darren Reed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 8:09 AM > > To: Moehrke, John (GE Healthcare) > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Rainer Gerhards; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [Syslog] RE: Message format > > > > > 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
