Hi, Yes, I/we should correct this.
Do we have any information about vendors that have implemented the current UDP specification? dbh > -----Original Message----- > From: Rainer Gerhards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 6:29 AM > To: David Harrington; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Syslog] Shepherding document for udp-08 > > David, > > there is one minor thing in the shepherding document I do not concur > with: > > -- > This document describes the traditional udp transport for syslog. > draft-ietf-syslog-protocol makes changes to the syntax of the syslog > fields but this is just the udp transport. It could be said that > all existing implementations of syslog use this specification. > -- > > There are some changes in -transport-udp compared to the traditional > transport. I think it is somewhat dangerous to draw the conclusion > drawn. > > But as I said - this is a minor comment and probably depend's on ones > point of view... > > Rainer > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: David Harrington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 12:41 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [Syslog] Shepherding document for udp-08 > > > > Hi, > > > > I have reviewed a pre-publication copy of -08- and am satisifed it > > represents WG consensus and is of a quality sufficient for > advancement > > to Proposed Standard. > > > > Barring serious objection from the WG, revision -08- will > be submitted > > to the IESG for advancement, accompanied by the attached > shepherding > > document. > > > > David Harrington > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > co-chair, Syslog WG > > > _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
