Hi,
On Fri, 11 May 2007, David Harrington wrote:
Hi,
I think Chris meant to say "draft-ietf-syslog-protocol and
draft-ietf-transport-udp are back in Sam's hands.
draft-ietf-transport-tls only requires a WG review before going back
to Sam.
Doh! Yup.
Thanks,
Chris
__
.1 in
> > " reliable, and secure syslog extensions suffer from the
> lack of a"
> > where the comma is absent in the same sentence in the Abstract.
> >
> > I take it we are still awaiting a further -tls for review
> before the three of
> > them go to
than I
anticipated. Probably, they much improve the precision but, at first sight, I
am less certain about the increase in clarity.
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: "Chris Lonvick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 10:45 PM
Subje
ll awaiting a further -tls for review before the three of
them go to the rfc-editor.
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: "tom.petch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Chris Lonvick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 4:37 PM
Subjec
clarity.
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: "Chris Lonvick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 10:45 PM
Subject: [Syslog] FINAL review of draft-ietf-syslog-protocol
> Hi Folks,
>
> David and I would like to hand of
Hi Folks,
David and I would like to hand off this final version to Sam for
publication by Friday. I have performed an initial review and feel that
the changes address the IETF Last Call items.
The changes requested from the IETF Last Call were:
Item 1) Severity Range - The range of the Seve
