Chris, I would prefer
> __ No - take it out, we need to move the world along, as this removes a lot of complexity and guesswork. It will also be cleaner if rfc3164 is actually obsoleted by -syslog-protocol. If that is not WG consensus, I would recommend > __ Maybe - move it to a non-normative appendix As a formal note, I am not sure if we can create normative text based on a non-normative document (rfc 3164). This sounds kind of wrong to me... Rainer > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Lonvick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 3:20 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Syslog] RFC 3164 in syslog-sign? > > Hi, > > We started syslog-sign before we had Structured Data, and the original > author was creating a mechanism that could be used within the RFC 3164 > framework. However, times have changed. We now have syslog-protocol > with > SDs. > > Does the WG feel that syslog-sign should contain normative information > on > how to utilize the syslog-sign mechanism in the RFC 3164 format? > > Answers can be: > __ Yes - leave it, it forms a bridge for transition, > __ No - take it out, we need to move the world along, > __ Maybe - move it to a non-normative appendix > > Thanks, > Chris > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 15:51:25 +0100 > From: Rainer Gerhards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Chris Lonvick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: APP-NAME, > PROCID and MSGID in syslog sign - was: RE: [Syslog] clonvick WGLC > Review of > draft-ietf-syslog-sign-20.txt > > Chris, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Chris Lonvick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 3:37 PM > > To: Rainer Gerhards > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: APP-NAME, PROCID and MSGID in syslog sign - was: RE: > [Syslog] > > clonvick WGLC Review of draft-ietf-syslog-sign-20.txt > > ---some elided for brevity--- > > With RFC 3164 syslog, we obviously can not totally be assured that the > SD-ID will be valid. But we should keep in mind that we most probably > will try to obsolete 3164 either via -protocol or a follow-up RFC. I > already questioned the point in supporting this (informational!) > document in a new standard. Is this really a wise idea? > > Rainer > ---remainder elided for brevity--- > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
