Chris & WG, > > #5 Character encoding in MSG: due to my proof-of-concept > > implementation, I have raised the (ugly) question if we need > > to allow encodings other than UTF-8. Please note that this > > question arises from needs introduced by e.g. POSIX. So we > > can't easily argue them away by whishful thinking ;) > > > > Not even discussed yet. > > I haven't reviewed that yet. However, I'll note that > allowing different > encoding can be accomplished in the future as long as we establish a > default encoding and a way to identify it in our current work.
I have read a little in the mailing archive. Please note that in 2000 it was consensus that the MSG part may contain encodings other then US-ASCII. Follow this threat: http://www.syslog.cc/ietf/autoarc/msg00127.html This discussion lead to RFC 3164 saying "other encodings MAY be used". While this was observed behaviour, we need still to be aware that the POSIX (and glibc) API places the restrictions on us that we simply do not know the character encoding used by the application. As such, no *nix syslogd can be programmed to be compliant to syslog-protocol if we demand UTF-8 exclusively. I propose that we RECOMMEND UTF-8 that MUST start with the Unicode Byte Order Mask (BOM) if used. If the MSG part does not start with the BOM, it may be any encoding just as in RFC 3164. I do not see any alternative to this. Rainer _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
