[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Actually, it seems kind of silly to use TCP for what is essentially a
> connectionless protocol. We do need reliability, of course, but that
> can be taken care of with application-generated ACKs, without a lot of
> coding. We don't need the sequence numbers, sliding windows, or other
> traffic shaping features of TCP. We also don't need to initiate
> connections from the destination to the source.
Hmm. Ever tried to use the current syslog thru one (or several)
firewalls in a high-security environment?
> The KIS principle should drive this decision. Which makes a simpler
> protocol? Which makes a simpler implementation? Which will speed
> syslog2's adoption? Let's learn from the lessons of SNMPv2 and not
> repeat them.
KIS is fine. But the one thing that will speed up the adoption is added
functionality compared to the existing syslog. And I don't think that
simply packing integrity protection into the age-old syslog will do that
trick.
Cheers,
-daniel
