r 22, 2005 10:27 AM
> To: Rainer Gerhards; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Syslog] #7, field order
>
> Not sure I have grasped the problem yet but the cases you
> cite would appear to
> be covered by rules of the form, using pseudo-English as a shortcut,
>
> FIELD = ONEC
-
From: "Rainer Gerhards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 6:16 PM
Subject: RE: [Syslog] #7, field order
David, Darren,
even though no responses indicated we actually need to fix this, I
wanted to at least try an alternate ABNF. H
Of Rainer Gerhards
> Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 12:17 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Syslog] #7, field order
>
> David, Darren,
>
> even though no responses indicated we actually need to fix this, I
> wanted to at least try an alternate ABNF. However, I did n
al Message-
> From: David B Harrington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 6:50 PM
> To: Rainer Gerhards; 'Darren Reed'
> Subject: RE: [Syslog] #7, field order
>
> Hi,
>
> Having a public feud won't help us achieve our goals.
>
> > > data for that field.
> > >
> > > If you don't understand the difference here, I think the fields need
> > > to be defined something like this:
> > >
> > > field ::= missing | non-dash | PRINTUSASCII*1 PRINTUSASCII*255
> > > missing ::= "-"
> >
> > And as someone else pointed out to me, PRI
OTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 7:11 PM
> To: Rainer Gerhards; Tom Petch; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Syslog] #7 field order
>
> Rainer, a better way to phrase this is may be that none of
> the fields are optional (except for maybe SD, depending on
> how you
re.
Anton.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rainer Gerhards
> Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 10:45 AM
> To: Tom Petch; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Syslog] #7 field order
>
> Tom,
>
> well-spotted. Indee
David,
> Can you please ask those who are sending you private messages to make
> their points on the mailing list, as is appropriate for IETF WG
> discussions?
That's what I typically do. But what if they are not willing to do that
and the point is important?
Rainer
ay, November 30, 2005 4:07 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Syslog] #7 field order
>
> I just got private mail if a missing field is denoted by "-". This
is
> the case. Optional fields should be all but VERSION.
>
> Rainer
>
> > -Original M
Tom,
well-spotted. Indeed, PRI is NOT optional. The only one, as far as I am
concerned.
Rainer
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Petch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 12:35 PM
> To: Rainer Gerhards; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Syslog]
I was thinking that is also not optional.
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: "Rainer Gerhards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 10:06 AM
Subject: RE: [Syslog] #7 field order
I just got private mail if a missi
> WG,
>
> there has not been much discussion about the header fields and their
> order recently. I think this is a sign the issue has been settled. To
> make sure I got the right understanding of the resulting consensus, I
> propose that we use the following format:
>
> VERSION SP TIMESTAMP SP HO
I just got private mail if a missing field is denoted by "-". This is
the case. Optional fields should be all but VERSION.
Rainer
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rainer Gerhards
> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 9:37 AM
> To: [EM
13 matches
Mail list logo
