On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Chris Lonvick wrote:
Agreed. I'm sorry, indeed; during the discussion I've missed the point of
the whole aim of this WG :-) I'll get back to the point.
Sincerely,
alfonso
> Hello Alfonso,
>
> Your proposals have merit but they change the observed behaviour of the
> syslog protocol message format. The WG was chartered to
> - only document the existing protocol,
> - provide an authenticated transport to the existing messages, and
> - provide an authenticated transport with verifiable delivery to the
> existing messages.
> This means that we cannot make any changes to the message format.
>
> I'd suggest that you get together with the other folks on the list who
> would like to make changes to the syslog format. The selection of a
> code set seems to align very well with that. You may want to draft
> an informational ID, or you may want to hold a BoF in San Diego.
--
Alfonso De Gregorio, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
