Hi Bazsi, On Sat, 21 Dec 2002, Balazs Scheidler wrote:
> 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'd like to discuss that separately from this discussion of a tcp-based transport. The last I saw, you had raised a question about sending the time referenced to GMT rather than local timezone. Was that resolved? If it is the consensus of the WG to use that format (along with accepting the traditional 3164 timestamp format), then it may be placed into syslog-sign. > > > 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. Would that be to document all of the ways that the fields were extended/expanded/morphed, or to describe the various tcp-based implementations, or both? Thanks, Chris
