Darren, and others, Could you please use the issue # in the subject line, preferably one issue per message, so it is easier to find all of a conversation related to a specific issue?
Darren, I tried to find the comments you made while the group was trying to establish consensus on various items, and see what the group;'s reaction was to your comments. I have no idea which messages contained your comments, and I would find it hard in the future to locate your current comments (below) regarding #7, since #7 is not in the subject line of your email. Thanks for your cooperation, David Harrington [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Darren Reed > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 9:45 AM > To: Rainer Gerhards > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Syslog] RE: syslog-protocol draft > > > Darren, > > > > an "I would like to see this too" is a good indication that a > > controversal feature is required. I have honestly posted > what I think so > > that all others can jump in. For the rest, see the archive ;) > > Well, I don't want to disappoint you, but if someone else comes up > with something, I'm not going to "me too" it unless you actively > disagree with it. Sorry if that spoils your party. Most of us have > better things to do than send and receive "me too" emails unless they > are a vote. > > Back to the issue at hand...for #7, field order...or field details > > The "HOSTNAME" field should be constrained, in its definition, to > match that accepted for FQDNs. "PRINTUSASCII" is too wide. > I believe you need to read RFC 1035. > > Similarly, I'd like to see APP-NAME, PROCID and MSGID refined to be > less than the entire character set. A contradiction in > syslog-protocol > is allowing PRINTUSASCII for fields but a field of "-" is used to > indicate it is not there. > > ..I can imagine some people would like to consider that the HOSTNAME > field should be unrestricted to allow for extended character > set names. > Allowing and supporting that should come when & if the IETF decides to > go that way. > > Otherwise the comment about "-" is that your grammar is wrong because > you define various fields to be PRINTUSASCII*256 (or whatever the > length is), which specifically includes "-" as being a valid > field name. > It isn't. You document it as representing the absence of any > meaningful > data for that field. > > If you don't understand the difference here, I think the fields need > to be defined something like this: > > field ::= missing | non-dash | PRINTUSASCII*1 PRINTUSASCII*255 > missing ::= "-" > > Darren > > _______________________________________________ > Syslog mailing list > Syslog@lists.ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog > _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
