> Darren, > > > The only place a message size limit should be specified is in > > a transport > > mapping. If it's in -15 then it should be removed. Limits > > of all sizes > > and types do nothing but contribute to aging of a protocol. > > -protocol-15 is a compromise after a very long discussion. It says: > > ----- > A receiver MUST be able to accept messages up to and including 480 > octets in length. For interoperability reasons, all receiver > implementations SHOULD be able to accept messages up to and including > 2,048 octets in length. > > If a receiver receives a message with a length larger than 2,048 > octets, or larger than it supports, the receiver MAY discard the > message or truncate the payload. > ----- > > I think this text is useful. It keeps the door open for any size > messages while still allowing it to be restricted by the transport > mappings and individual implementations (e.g. on low-end embedded > devices). It cautions implementors against being too verbose but also > sets a lower limit that each implementation can assume to be received. > > I think we should continue to use this text. Do you agree?
No. That text doesn't belong in this draft. Darren _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
