The Healthcare industry has tried to use COOKED... WHY is it considered
no uptake? We have security audit events that get captured in an XML
message; thus COOKED would be preferred. (See RFC 3881)
I agree that the audit servers have not implemented it, but then again
there isn't much conformance
On Fri, 2007-01-26 at 11:46 +0100, Eliot Lear wrote:
Chris all,
As you mentioned, Darren, Marshall, and I will produce an internet-draft
that revises RFC 3195 (rfc3195bis). As part of that effort we envision
accomplishing the following:
* Obsoleting RAW and COOKED profiles. The
-Original Message-
From: Eliot Lear [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 11:46 AM
To: Chris Lonvick
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Syslog] 3195bis before syslog-sign
Chris all,
As you mentioned, Darren, Marshall, and I will produce an internet-
Hi John,
-Original Message-
From: Moehrke, John (GE Healthcare) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 1:45 PM
To: Eliot Lear; Chris Lonvick
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Syslog] 3195bis before syslog-sign
The Healthcare industry has tried to use COOKED...
Hi,
[speaking as co-chair]
It appears to me that somehow we got out of sync. I want to make sure
we are all in sync, so let me review where we are and where the chairs
think this WG needs to go to get our ***chartered*** work done.
Chris and I discussed the syslog-sign WGLC, and the need to
Hi,
[speaking as co-chair]
As a very interested observer and consumer of your standards, I am
getting very frustrated at the lack of commitment to ANY
specification
and lack of interest in completing anything. I strongly recommend
singular focus on syslog-protocol and it's bindings. Get them
David,
-Original Message-
From: David Harrington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 4:15 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Syslog] RFC3195bis
[.. big snip ..]
Chris and I did not agree that RAW mode should be obsoleted and
replaced with a new mode. That
