Chris, Where has been my brain... ;)
>advantage. As of now, I think we could not do a >> standard-compliant sign via RAW implementation. I meant COOKED! Rainer >"authenticated syslog" work was to be finished first, and then the >"reliable transport" work was to be completed. However, when Marshall and >Darren were ready to do syslog-reliable, only RFC 3164 was available. >When syslog-sign is submitted to become an RFC, Marshall and Darren will >be able to revise 3195 to incorporate the better fields (TIMESTAMP and >HOSTNAME) that are defined there. It was also suggested that 3195 be >revised to accomodate work going on in the NetConf WG but I havn't seen >much activity there yet dealing with 3195. > >> >> Comments? > >Yup. If we get far enough in our discussions of the internationalization >of syslog, that may be factored into the revision of 3195. :-) > >> >> Many thanks, >> Rainer Gerhards > >Thanks, >Chris >
