PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 6:36 AM
> To: David Harrington; 'Chris Lonvick'; 'Miao Fuyou'
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Syslog] delineated datagrams
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "David Harrington" <[EMAIL
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Lonvick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 8:20 AM
> To: Tom Petch
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Syslog] delineated datagrams
>
> Hi Tom and All,
>
> What I've seen discussed:
>
t; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Miao Fuyou'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Tom Petch'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 7:59 PM
Subject: RE: [Syslog] delineated datagrams
As you probably know by now, I like t
sage-
> From: Anton Okmianski (aokmians) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 2:10 PM
> To: Nagaraj Varadharajan (nagarajv); [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Syslog] delineated datagrams
>
> I thought we were targeting the TLS transport to the new
> syslog
6 3:51 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Syslog] delineated datagrams
>
> Sorry for jumping in late on this topic and also pardon me if
> I have not understood the discussion correctly.
>
> My thought is that the easiest way syslog over tls will be
> implemente
to drastically change their underlying syslog
implementations
Regards,
Nagaraj
-Original Message-
From: Rainer Gerhards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 9:22 PM
To: Balazs Scheidler
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tom Petch
Subject: RE: [Syslog] delineated datagrams
> Maybe this already has been said ;)
>
> This makes sense. What about other control characters?
>
We need to differentiate between on-the-wire format and storage format.
On-the-wire, I would escape only LF and the escape character. In
storage, I would escape any control character (which can be
On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 05:29 +0200, Rainer Gerhards wrote:
> Bazsi, all,
>
> I am not really able to follow the thread, but let me put in an
> important thought.
>
> We *must* allow LF inside the message. If we do not do that, it would
> cause problems with -protocol. This issue has been discussed
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 1:47 AM
> To: John Calcote
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Tom Petch'
> Subject: RE: [Syslog] delineated datagrams
>
> On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 13:44 -0600, John Calcote wrote:
> > Chris,
> >
> > Wh
Bazsi,
Thanks. You're right of course. I've been considering using a
compressed form of XML for our messages anyway because I don't like the
chatty nature of XML in a logging protocol. One compression technique is
as simple as removing all of the \r\n\t and space characters, and then
removing the
On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 13:44 -0600, John Calcote wrote:
> Chris,
>
> While I agree with you in principle that both forms of delineation are
> nice to have for interop, I _wish_ we could get rid of LF - that so
> limits the sort of data that can be sent in the message. My two
> cents...
The message
sm
>> for Syslog.
>>>
>>> As for error of encoding/decoding, I believe if an application
does
>>> encoding/decoding in a wrong way, you must not expect it do
>> it right
>>> with other mechanism, such as LF.
>>>
>>> Redundancy to impr
On Fri, 2006-08-04 at 13:59 -0400, David Harrington wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As you probably know by now, I like to see design reuse across IETF NM
> solutions, especially across SNMP, syslog, ipfix, and netconf where
> feasible.
>
> As all the IETF NM protocols move toward similar secure transport
> sol
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 10:14 AM
> To: Miao Fuyou
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Tom Petch'
> Subject: RE: [Syslog] delineated datagrams
>
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to get this resolved and put into the next version
> of the draft.
&
o Fuyou
> Cc: Rainer Gerhards; 'Tom Petch'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Syslog] delineated datagrams
>
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to get this resolved and put into the next version
> of the draft.
>
> Many protocols use byte-counting for framing.
> Many p
CTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 8:43 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Syslog] delineated datagrams
wasdraft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt
I wonder if others share my concern about the lack of
robustness in
the way in which datagrams are delineated in the stream
protocol (a
TCP rathe
I believe if an application does
> > encoding/decoding in a wrong way, you must not expect it do
> it right
> > with other mechanism, such as LF.
> >
> > Redundancy to improve robustness is good idea, but I don't
> think it
> > applies to this case.
> >
>
une 20, 2006 8:43 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Syslog] delineated datagrams
> wasdraft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt
>
> I wonder if others share my concern about the lack of
> robustness in the way in which datagrams are delineated in
> the stream prot
Andrew,
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew Ross [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 12:52 AM
> To: Rainer Gerhards; 'Tom Petch'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Syslog] delineated datagrams
>
>
> Rainer,
>
> I'm in f
Kiwi Enterprises
-Original Message-
From: Rainer Gerhards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 21 July 2006 2:02 a.m.
To: Rainer Gerhards; Tom Petch; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Syslog] delineated datagrams
WG,
now with the consensus on moving forward with -transport-tls, I
ginal Message-
> From: Rainer Gerhards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 4:17 PM
> To: Tom Petch; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Syslog] delineated datagrams
>
> Tom,
>
> I think your and Anton's commetn below so far is the most important
&g
e
hasn't invented it roughly 10 years or so ago.
Rainer
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Petch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 11:47 AM
> To: Anton Okmianski (aokmians); [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Syslog] delineated datagrams
>
Tom:
[big snip]
> You may recall we have had discussions of length v end of
> record marker before
> (and yes, I do like end of record markers:-)
I see your concerns and think they are valid. I have argued for using a
length in the header instead of an end of record marker. But this is
differe
- Original Message -
From: "Anton Okmianski (aokmians)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Tom Petch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 8:18 PM
Subject: RE: [Syslog] delineated datagrams
Tom:
I think these are valid concer
TECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 8:43 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Syslog] delineated datagrams
> wasdraft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt
>
> I wonder if others share my concern about the lack of
> robustness in the way in
> which datagrams are delineated
I wonder if others share my concern about the lack of robustness in the way in
which datagrams are delineated in the stream protocol (a TCP rather than a TLS
issue).
The system works as long as
- the frame length is encoded perfectly
- the frame length is decoded perfectly
- no bytes are insert
26 matches
Mail list logo
