[Syslog] Discuss - Congestion Control

Discuss - Congestion Control Magnus: But what I think is needed here is some clear and normative requirement on how to avoid and limit congestion. First of all I would like to see a restriction on the applicability of this transport to within a controlled environment unless the rate is

[Syslog] Discuss - UDP Length

Discuss - UDP Length Lars: draft-ietf-syslog-transport-udp-09, Section 65535, paragraph 0: This transport mapping supports transmission of syslog messages up to 65535 octets in size. This limit stems from the maximum supported UDP payload of 65535 octets specified in the RFC 768

[Syslog] IESG Discusses and Comments

Hi Folks, David and I have been trying to address the open DISCUSSes on -syslog-protocol and -syslog-transport-udp. https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/ballot/1800/ As an aside: Sam has reviewed -syslog-transport-tls and has asked for some modifications. Miao and Yuzhi are working on

[Syslog] Discuss - Source Address

Discuss - Source Address Lars: draft-ietf-syslog-protocol-21, Section 5., paragraph 2: If a syslog application is running on a machine that has both statically and dynamically assigned addresses, then that value SHOULD be from the statically assigned addresses. As an alternative,

[Syslog] Discuss - UDP Checksum

Discuss - UDP Checksum === Magnus: Discuss [2007-06-19]: UDP transport: Section 3.6: It is RECOMMENDED that syslog senders use valid UDP checksums when sending messages over IPv4 and IPv6. It is RECOMMENDED that syslog receivers check the checksums whenever they are present (i.e.

Re: [Syslog] Discuss - UDP Checksum

Hi Juergen, Good question. ..and not something that we'll be able to answer in our WG. I'll bring it up in the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list. Thanks, Chris On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 07:56:39AM -0700, Chris Lonvick wrote: We used to recommend

Re: [Syslog] Discuss - UDP Checksum

Hi, On the other hand... ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-guidelines-01.txt UDP Usage Guidelines for Application Designers (Lars Eggert is co-author). Section 3.4 is Checksum Guidelines. It appears that there is enough question about this that specific

Re: [Syslog] Discuss - UDP Checksum

On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 11:51:13AM -0700, Chris Lonvick wrote: Which brings us back to our original question. Is the proposed language below what the WG wants? As an implementor, I have a problem with the statement syslog senders MUST use UDP checksums when sending messages over IPv4

RE: [Syslog] Discuss - UDP Checksum

[Strictly speaking as an implementor, not as a draft editor] I second Juergen's point of view. I go even further. When receiving, I take great care not to loose any message. Under stress conditions (e.g. low system memory), I accept lage deformations of the message. Checksums are my least

RE: [Syslog] Discuss - UDP Checksum

Hi, How about the following: syslog senders MUST NOT disable UDP checksums. syslog senders SHOULD use UDP checksums when sending messages over IPv4. syslog senders MUST use UDP checksums when sending messages over IPv6. syslog receivers should be lenient in what they receive.

Re: [Syslog] Discuss - UDP Checksum

On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 02:14:06PM -0700, Chris Lonvick wrote: How about the following: syslog senders MUST NOT disable UDP checksums. syslog senders SHOULD use UDP checksums when sending messages over IPv4. syslog senders MUST use UDP checksums when sending messages over IPv6.