Hello Albert and All, I've talked to Jon about this and it looks do-able in the next draft.
Honestly, I think that it would be greatly beneficial if we waited to see your implementation. Working code is a premium to making sure that we have the "right" stuff in the RFC. :-) Let's give Jon and John some time to work out some changes and post that. Then we'll see where you are with your implementation. Is anyone else working on an implementation at this time? We'd all like to hear comments about that as well. Many thanks, Chris At 10:57 PM 11/6/2001 +0100, albert mietus wrote: >> Hello Albert, >> >> I've been thinking about this and talking to a few people. >> The issue you raise is interesting and I do see your point. > >> As I said, your point is valid and it may have ramifications >> in future implementations. We may have the opportunity to >> remedy this. :-) In a separate note, Eric Allman suggested >> that we use the syslog-sign work to tighten up the >> specifications of the format. Under our charter, we can't >> create a new message format, but we can make some statements >> about a "MUST" format that does give good explanations and >> guidance, which must be used for compliance with syslog-sign. >> The syslog-sign work is STANDARDS TRACK so everyone should be >> implementing to that rather than to RFC 3164. > >Hai Chris, > >I'm very pleased to read your respond. > > >When we "correct it" in syslog-sign, we make a big step to make it a more >usefull rfc. >As said, the RFC isn't wrong is the most strict definitions. But it's isn't >as strong as we (I) would like it to see either. >The major issue is "the future". So, improving the describtion in >syslog-sign is an good idea. > >BTW, I did promise to review syslog-sign. And I'm started; the are some >minor points. I'm now implementing (quickly) -sign to see wheter there are >"major" point. I don't hope so. but .... > > >I hope, there is some time left to review on time. As I have to do it in >"left over hours", it is ready as quickly as I hoped it was. >Can you give me an estimite on timeframes? > >Greetings to all > >PS one issue on syslog-sign: there are a lot of "binairy (ANS.1/base64) >strings" that aren't readable! >We need them, to transmit te signature, but syslog-syslog ``demands'' >*readable* messages. >We can solve it, by adding (XLM-like) meta information. It improves >readablity at the cost of bandwith. >Perhaps, we should suggest/permit it? > > >--ALbert >sent mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], to address me personal. >sent mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], to address me for businesses
