---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 17:54:51 -0800 (PST) From: Christopher Lonvick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Darren New <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Any chance for a Simple Reliable Syslog Protocol?
Hi Darren, On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, Darren New wrote: > Balazs Scheidler wrote: > > My reasoning is: > > * solve possible TCP interop problems with current implementations > > * to provide a way to send reliable messages for small edge devices which > > probably will never implement SCTP nor BEEP (DSL routers for instance) > > Well, during the early days, I tried to push for a better timestamp and > it was considered a modification to the payload. Of course, the cooked > mode does a better job of carrying the timestamp, but that's admittedly > a lot more overhead. However, I'm not the authoratative answer on that. > :-) Yup. I appreciate your patience. The idea was *supposed* to be that syslog-sign would get the actual syslog format (the "new & improved version") with an appropriate TIMESTAMP rather than 3164. ..but, we work with what we have and we'll continue to work on syslog-sign. Hopefully this means that a rev of 3195 will allow for this timestamp. Switching gears a bit, do you have any thoughts on the proposal from Frank O'Dwyer to include something along the lines of "MAY accept other profiles"? Thanks, Chris
