Re: flexible facilities -- transmission protocol

[by way of "Chris M. Lonvick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]

On Wed, Oct 20, 1999 at 11:17:12AM -0400, Chris Calabrese wrote:
 > However, I'd really like to see the facility name as plain text.  I don't 
 > want to have to maintain the integer->facility-name mapping on every machine.  
 > I don't want the programs generating the logs to have to do a mapping lookup 
 > before they can log (esp. the kernel).  I don't want to even think about what 
 > happens when two departments merge and they decide to merge their logging 
 > infrastructure, but they find lots of duplicate/conflicting facility numbers 
 > in use.

Don't forget new applications, with new names, that want to log.  Also, we'd
have to name a central authority to assign facility numbers.  I agree; 
a plaintext facility name is the only way to go here.
  
 > Yes, this puts more bits on the wire, how many, really?  Sites/vendors 
 > that are really concerned can keep facility names to a few characters 
 > to save bandwidth.

I think the concern is more often one of on-disk log size, but that's 
definitely an implementation detail and not a protocol issue.

--
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>