Hi Rainer, I've snipped much of your posting and answered questions below.
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Rainer Gerhards wrote: > > > > Would it be appropriate in Section 6.2.1 "VERSION" to describe that > > the VERSION field can only be changed by STANDARDS ACTIONS as defined > > in RFC 2434? Also, the VERSION needs to be registered with > > IANA and needs > > to be stated in the instructions to the IANA. > > I've changed it to "Standards Action" in 9.1. Do you think I actually > need to repeat this in 6.2.1? The IANA section needs to be very clear. The IANA people really only look there for their instructions. > > Does 9.2 also require "Standards Action" or is "Specification Required" > (as it is currently) sufficient? I am a bit in doubt, maybe it's better > to keep this consistent. Be consistent. > duplicated to IANA considerations, but mentioning only SD-IDs there. > Which brings up the question: must we put PARAM-Names under > IANA-Control, too? It kind of looks so... Yup. :) > > I think talking about rate-limiting on the receiver's side does not make > so much sense, as it will result in message loss in any case (at least > with UDP transport). Do you think the proposed text is OK? Looks good to me. > > However, this raises a question: should we allow experimental SD-PARAMs > in standardized SD-IDs? Or should these only be allowed in experimental > SD-IDs (x-)? That's a question for the WG. WG Chair hat OFF: I'd suggest putting in a quick statement about allowing "x-<SD-PARAMs>" in any SD-IDs. Eveyone: Get your thoughts in quickly on this. > > Chris, I am not sure if the "must" below must be in upper case (as it is > no protocol related thing). I'd appreciate your advise: > > ### > IANA must register the SD-IDs shown in table 4 below. > ### ^^^^ You can leave it lowercase. Thanks, Chris _______________________________________________ Syslog-sec mailing list Syslog-sec@www.employees.org http://www.employees.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog-sec
