Hi,
It appears that we have consensus to adopt a new piece of work
specifically to document the transport mapping of syslog. This work needs
to state that the REQUIRED mapping at this time is UDP for assured
interoperability. It needs to stay short, and to the point so it can
progress with
Hi all,
thanks for all the great comments. Let me try to sum up the current
concensus:
- multiple transport mappings are a good thing
- it is at least helpful to have one required transport. Some do not
really like this idea, but would tolerate it (correct me if I got
this wrong!)
- a
Given that state of the discussion, I propose that we
actually require
each implementation that talks to a transport MUST support the
to-be-written UDP transport mapping.
I disagree with this on principle. This that talks to a transport
crappy-little-rule is being done to accommodate a
not a priority for
this group here.
Rainer
-Original Message-
From: Harrington, David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 9:26 PM
To: Rainer Gerhards; Anton Okmianski; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: -protocol: transport mappings
Hi,
Comments inline.
*snip
-Original Message-
From: Rainer Gerhards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 11:28 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: -protocol: transport mappings
Given that state of the discussion, I propose that we actually require
each implementation that talks
-Original Message-
From: Rainer Gerhards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Given that state of the discussion, I propose that we require each
implementation MUST support the to-be-written UDP transport mapping.
Everybody is free to use the format when not talking to someone else.
After
Hi,
Comments inline.
*snip*
2. I think requiring UDP implementation reduces the areas in which
syslog message format RFC could be utilized. I can see
many different
areas. For example, if RFC came without UDP baggage, we,
within Cisco,
could potentially standardize on this format
is not a MUST.
Anton.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew Ross
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 7:28 PM
To: 'Chris Lonvick'; 'Rainer Gerhards'
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: -protocol: transport mappings
I agree that having
David,
I think this is an very important comment in regard to the overall
design. I think it is of advantage to facilitate the
creation of other
transport mappings, as for example is currently being
discussed for SNMP
inform messages.
Where is this discussion taking place? In the
From: Anton Okmianski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I agree with general consensus that there must be at least
one mapping.
I guess UDP is easiest. But I would prefer that compliance with this
transport is not required as far as -protocol. We all know
UDP may not
be an ideal transport, so a
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rainer Gerhards
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 11:18 AM
To: Anton Okmianski; Andrew Ross; Chris Lonvick; Harrington,
David; Marshall Rose
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: -protocol: transport mappings
From: Anton Okmianski [mailto:[EMAIL
I think the cleanest approach is to put the transport into a separate
RFC and publish the UDP mapping concurrently with -protocol. However,
considering that the whole transport description for UDP is just use
port 514, I am not sure if the WG wants to go with the overhead of
extra RFC
Hi
Comments inline.
My position is that -protocol should NOT contain any transport mapping
and that there should be a short RFC outlining how -protocol is to be
mapped on UDP transport.
I think it is important to have at least one transport mapping to ensure
interoperability.
I'm a bit
Hi David,
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004, Harrington, David wrote:
Hi
Comments inline.
My position is that -protocol should NOT contain any transport mapping
and that there should be a short RFC outlining how -protocol is to be
mapped on UDP transport.
I think it is important to have at least
14 matches
Mail list logo
