On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 12:45:47PM -0800, Christopher Lonvick wrote: > Hi Bazsi, > > Pardon me for not putting comments in-line but I'd like to summarize and > see where this discussion is going. As I see it, various people have > said: > > - 3195 is too heavy > - a minimal implementation (just say 'no') of 3195 may be light enough > - there are many tcp-based implementations to transport syslog but none > of them interoperate > - a simple tcp-based implementation would need all of the aspects of > BEEP to optionally call the security features that are desired > (reliable transport, confidentiality, device authentication) > - BEEP channels can be a good thing > > (Did I miss any other thoughts?)
the question of rfc3339 timestamps. > I'm still not seeing what features/functions are missing from 3195, or > what features/functions a simple tcp-based syslog would fill. I don't see > that documenting any/all of the old methods would serve a purpose either. > > I'll keep this discussion open to see if we can get a clear reason for a > simple reliable tcp protocol. the reason is similar to why RFC3164 was released: document current practices. The protocol described in RFC3164 has been extended in nearly all syslog implementations developed recently. -- Bazsi PGP info: KeyID 9AF8D0A9 Fingerprint CD27 CFB0 802C 0944 9CFD 804E C82C 8EB1
