Anton,
I could have been more clear on that point. These other standards describe publish/subscribe systems for event notification. I was referring to a standardized protocol for audit/log data. This data stream may be filtered by policy at various points in the stream, but it's not pub/sub.
John:
The standards you listed define not just payload, but also the
whole messaging. WSDM uses SOAP over HTTP. CIM-CX / WBEM - non-SOAP
XML over HTTP.
I am not sure what we can add to help the above other than to say
use TLS.
Or do you want syslog WG to provide an alternative mes
David:
Please clarify...
Are you suggesting we drop syslog-protocol, which actually defines message
format, and just do a generic secure transport for events? Something that just
does framing, app-level ack and had generic payload?
And then we continue to live without syslog standard, waitin
Jumping in to add my two cents...
I quite agree with David on this point. If the syslog WG chose to begin work on network management issues, it would be stepping into a realm already well covered by other standards efforts. However - what the world does need is a standardized and widely underst
Hi,
[posting as a contributor]
I recommend this WG make a clear separation (as much as is possible)
between issues of security and issues of network management.
Issues such as harmonization with the work of other SDOs, integration
with netconf, message formatting, content standardization, and s
David,
I fully agree with your thought. I, too, think we must put emphasis on
the delivery of documents. In my personal opinion, this leaves only two
realistic options:
a) rfc 3195bis as you have described it (without the "rathole
discussion")
b) -transport-tls more or less as it is now
I think
