David,
-Original Message-
From: Harrington, David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 9:53 PM
To: Rainer Gerhards; Glenn Mansfield Keeni; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: SyslogMIB Issue-#4 // Issue-#2
Hi,
SNMP is good at monitoring systems, but not as good
David,
thanks for your wake-up call...
I believe we should move to UTF-8 to allow operators who
UTF-8 is actually a MUST in syslog-protocol.
I have to admit that I did not fully understand UNICODE until now... I
always read RFC 2279 (UTF-8 encoding). It specifies (page 2):
- Character values
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
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 12:02:14 -0500
From: Anton Okmianski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Rainer Gerhards' [EMAIL PROTECTED],
'Harrington, David' [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: -international: trailer
Rainer:
I am still tempted to allow
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
I think this again is a good wake-up call. After all, here in this
group, we are talking about on-the wire protocols and specifications. In
the light of this, a syslog-storage RFC is something that inherently
is out of scope for IETF, as there is no communication involved.
Anyhow, I think the
-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 to a
Rainer:
It is a tough one. You almost convinced me. But you talk about server
implementation's side only. What about client's side?
If I write a Java client and 0x00 is a prohibited character, do you
think I will have to scan each string passed to me to make sure it does
not include 0x00? It
-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
Rainer:
Good research. I too did not realize there were control characters
outside of ASCII in Unicode. The Unicode character range you referenced
had, for example, alternative line separator. How many line separators
does the world need for God sake? :)
I agree with your conclusion that we
Anton:
I am still tempted to allow only octets in the range of 1..255. ;)
I think at least technically this restriction is possible because 0x00
never appears as part of any characters encoded as multi-octet
characters in UTF-8. See table here:
Hi Rainer,
I don't know UTF-8 very well. I am of the impression that 0x00 can occur
in UTF-8, in multi-byte character sequences. You've been researching the
UTF-8. Can you determine if that's true? If it is, then we cannot limit
octets to 1..255 values.
dbh
-Original Message-
From:
Hi,
I see our messages crossed in transit. You've already researched whether
0x00 occurs in UTF-8.
I have a concern about making C-compatibility a requirement of
-protocol. I understand the concern about the amount of work
implementors may need to do, and it spotential impact on adoption.
I agree.
Besides, it seems to me if we prohibit something like this, the
implementations would still need to be aware of it. In fact, they will
need to check for it in order to be compliant with the RFC and log a
diagnostic message if they receive something non-compliant.
Also, most modern
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
16 matches
Mail list logo
