On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 04:58:27PM -0400, James Carlson wrote: > It depends on whether there is in fact a solid problem out there that > this solves. I'm unconvinced on that. Giving message integrity to > syslog seems a bit wobbly to me, but I guess I can see why someone > might want that. Providing structure, though, just makes no sense. > Given the effort required to make usable MIBs, I expect that the > effort required to produce usable (i.e., programmatic and stable) log > extensions to duplicate that level of effort. > > Failing to produce those sorts of schema leaves you with just a > handful of code numbers plus free-form text wrapped prettily in XML.
Each message could reference the schema/dtd that it conforms to... And existing MIBs could be re-used, perhaps. > > For the record, I've not read these I-Ds... > > Worth a read. They're not all that long, if you can wade through XML > and BEEP. Ew, BEEP. Only RFC3195 (Reliable Delivery for syslog) mentions XML or BEEP. The SYSLOG WG I-Ds make no mention of XML, much less BEEP. _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
