Rainer: I think it is may not a bad idea. The only issue is that we will have to produce all three IDs (-protocol, -transport and -relay) all at the same time, right? I think it would be a good idea or it would not provide a complete replacement for RFC 3164.
However, if all of this is much more work for you or for the group, I don't know if it is worth it. It would make more sense if we indeed end up having to add a lot more stuff for relay operations like ability to envelop the message so it can include original IP, time of reception, etc. More so than relay operations, I think my issue with size was related to various implementation guidance that may not be needed or could be counterproductive in some cases. I know it is a fine line. I have pointed a few examples. Anton. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rainer Gerhards > Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 6:01 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: -protocol issue 15: describe relay operations? > > > Hi WG, > > based on the recent comments I received on -protocol becoming > too large and in-depth, I wonder if it still makes sense to > include relay operations in -protocol? I think this could > easily be split into a separate document. If this is not > done, I assume that it will take up considerable space. > > If it should be in -protocol depends on what we actually > charter -protocol for. As of my current understanding, > -protocol is chartered to not just describe the format of the > message but also outline how the protocol itself works. If I > am right with this, relay operations MAY be described in > -protocol. But I could also envision that -protocol just says > "there are relays" and leaves the details for a different document. > > Leaving it for a different document would definitely help to > finish -protocol soon(er). It would also streamline it, as > probably not everyone implementing syslog will necessarily > implement relay mode (I assume most will not be interested in this). > > So my suggestion would be to remove in-depth description of > relay mode from -protocol and create a new document once > -protocol is FINISHED (and not before). I would volunteer > (actually like;)) to write this doc, because I already have a > lot of content, which I just would not merge into -protocol for now. > > Rainer > >
