----- Original Message ----- From: "Darren Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Tom Petch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 11:35 PM Subject: Re: [Syslog] Revised proposed charter
> [ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ] > > [tp] Strange, I was thiinking quite the opposite, that we had a fragile > > consensus which disappeared in > > Vancouver and has not been refound. Looking back at the messages posted > > in the past few days, about what should be in the header in what order, > > I was thinking, > > what now? because I see no consensus, rather the re-emergence of many > > different points of view. > > > > So while the proposed charter looks ok, because it does not go into that > > detail, I do not see how we progress any further, into the next level of > > technical detail, of what and how should be in the header. > > So long as everyone wants to solve every problem in one single RFC, > we will go nowhere. For those people I say "go use 3195" and stop > bothering the group with yoru quibbles. > > All this nonsense about NUL characters and message lengths, XML, > structured data, etc. Too many people here have a pet peeve they > want to see the first draft solve and seem determined to overload > it with that so that they're covered/happy. > > This is not a way forward but a way backward. > > We need to evolve the syslog protocol and we need to do that starting > with the basic protocol that has been used for years, build upon that > in a structured manner and conquer one piece of the problem at a time. > > If one thing is clear from this, it won't be possible to write a > single document that makes good all of the evolutions of the syslog > protocol. Some are going to have to be put in the "bad basket." > > If that happens to be yours, or mine, stiff. We're all going to > need to make sacrifices and changes if anything useful is going > to be achieved. > > Darren Mmmm I agree that sacrifices are needed but am puzzled by your reference to first draft. Syslog-protocol is at -15 and represents a (fragile) consensus about XML, null octet, truncation etc. What I don't understand is that Vancouver seems to say that we must reinstate <PRI> - ok - and while we are at it, go back to square one on lots of other things. If that is how it is, so be it (but I am still puzzled). Tom Petch _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
