Hi Petter,
At 01:50 PM 10/20/00 +0800, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>[Chris Lonvick]
>> 4.2 Domain Name and Address
>[...]
>> This may be shown in this specific example again using ISO 8601
>> nomenclature.
>> <52> Jan 01 12:00:01 myhost.example.org ..remainder of message..
>
>That date is definitely not an ISO 8601. I guess you forgot to edit
>it. :-)
Oops. I had changed everything to 8601 format in that section
but thought that was a bit too overboard. I went back and
changed that one to be the traditional style. I forgot to take
care of the notation about that.
>I liked the new new draft, and it fixed all the sections I had
>problems with.
>
>My only concern are the message example in section 3. I believe one
>of them should be of the form proposed in section 4. If not, I fear
>readers might get the impression that the example messages are good
>syslog messages, when in fact most of them are bad.
I'll make that change.
>Why is the bibliography missing the old syslog draft proposing a
>common format for the syslog messages themselves? I believe it should
>be suggested reading for the implementors of syslog tools.
Are you referring to the drafts that can be found here?
http://www.hsc.fr/ressources/veille/ulm/
That was an ID that has since expired. An ID (like this one) cannot move
forward to become an RFC if it has a reference to any other ID or other
expired submission. I think that it would be better if that effort was
resurrected and work progressed. At best, I think that I could say that
a BoF was held at the Fortieth IETF in an effort to standardize the
format.
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/97dec/index.html
Does anyone else think that this should be included?
Thanks,
Chris
