Re: [Syslog-sec] AD Review for draft-ietf-syslog-protocol-14

2005-10-17 Thread Tom Petch
. Tom Petch - Original Message - From: Rainer Gerhards [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: syslog-sec@employees.org Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 6:41 PM Subject: RE: [Syslog-sec] AD Review for draft-ietf-syslog-protocol-14 Hello all, I have thought quite a while about Sam's very good message

RE: Prefix - was: RE: [Syslog-sec] AD Review for draft-ietf-syslog-protocol-14

2005-09-29 Thread Rainer Gerhards
WG, Another alternative would be to use the precedent set (and already accepted by the IESG) in the SSH IDs. This would mean that the IANA-registered SD-ID params could not use the @ character. See section 6 of draft-ietf-secsh-architecture-22.txt and Section 4.6.1 of

syslog version - was: RE: [Syslog-sec] AD Review for draft-ietf-syslog-protocol-14

2005-09-25 Thread Chris Lonvick
Hi Rainer, On Thu, 22 Sep 2005, Rainer Gerhards wrote: 3) Backward compatibility and versioning are not really discussed. You define semantics of the version field but these semantics require the sender to be configured with the version that the receiver will support. Is this

Prefix - was: RE: [Syslog-sec] AD Review for draft-ietf-syslog-protocol-14

2005-09-25 Thread Chris Lonvick
Hi Again, On Thu, 22 Sep 2005, Rainer Gerhards wrote: 5) I don't think x- as a prefix is such a good idea for vendor use SD. It seems like that some way of identifying the vendor would be better; possibly something based on OIDs, enterprise numbers, or domain names. The problem with

RE: [Syslog-sec] AD Review for draft-ietf-syslog-protocol-14

2005-09-22 Thread Rainer Gerhards
Dear Sam WG, many thanks for your review of syslog-protocol and the questions raised. Below, I have given answers to many of the questions. Some of them include suggestions of how we could change the ID. I would appreciate if WG members could read through this mail, even though it is quite