t: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 3:12 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Syslog] MIB Issue #2: document terminology.
>
> David,
>
> I will happily do that. But before I can, I need to go back to the
> discussion on architecture in syslog-protocol. Is this issue
> solved? Do
>
David,
I will happily do that. But before I can, I need to go back to the
discussion on architecture in syslog-protocol. Is this issue solved? Do
we need a new section or are the proposed definition updates enough?
I am asking these questions because I think we need to be clear on the
terminology
