Nicolas Williams wrote: >On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 04:58:27PM -0400, James Carlson wrote: > > >>It depends on whether there is in fact a solid problem out there that >>this solves. I'm unconvinced on that. Giving message integrity to >>syslog seems a bit wobbly to me, but I guess I can see why someone >>might want that. Providing structure, though, just makes no sense. >>Given the effort required to make usable MIBs, I expect that the >>effort required to produce usable (i.e., programmatic and stable) log >>extensions to duplicate that level of effort. >> >>Failing to produce those sorts of schema leaves you with just a >>handful of code numbers plus free-form text wrapped prettily in XML. >> >> > >Each message could reference the schema/dtd that it conforms to... > >And existing MIBs could be re-used, perhaps. > > > >>>For the record, I've not read these I-Ds... >>> >>> >>Worth a read. They're not all that long, if you can wade through XML >>and BEEP. >> >> > >Ew, BEEP. Only RFC3195 (Reliable Delivery for syslog) mentions XML or >BEEP. The SYSLOG WG I-Ds make no mention of XML, much less BEEP. > >
I should add that this project is not proposing to add either RFC3195 support or the other work in progress on reliable transport for syslog, only the TLS/TCP mapping. Darren
