Rainer,
If that is consensus, we can add the statement "the handling of
non-compliant messages will be implementation dependent" which very
precisely describes the list consensus.
I will not have problems with that. The document needs to have
some statement like the above for completeness.
As fo
Hi Tom,
I think this is an extreme position. The reason is that if I take this
to its ultimate end, we would probably end up without any MUST in the
draft. For example, should we just say the date SHOULD be given in RFC
3339 format ... But leave it open to any implementor what he intends to
do? I
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: "Rainer Gerhards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Glenn M. Keeni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 2:46 PM
Subject: RE: [Syslog] Syslog Protocol doubts
Hi Glen,
thanks for the message. Let me start on an overview leve
Or we could simply reiterate Postel's law:
"In general, an implementation must be conservative
in its sending behavior, and liberal in its receiving behavior.
That
is, it must be careful to send well-formed datagrams, but must
accept
any datagram that it can interpret (e.g., not object to te
Hi Glen,
thanks for the message. Let me start on an overview level: if you look
at the evolution of the draft, you will see that earlier versions were
quite specific on what to do if the message was malformed. However,
based on dicussion, one after another of these rules were deleted. The
reason w
Hi,
I have been trying to figure out the error conditions
that a syslog receiver will need to anticipate and the
corresponding actions that it is expected to take. I do
not see this clearly spelt out in the protocol document.
There are several MUST clauses, I understand that a
compliant syslog s
