I've snipped much of your posting and answered questions below.
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Rainer Gerhards wrote:
> > Would it be appropriate in Section 6.2.1 "VERSION" to describe that
> > the VERSION field can only be changed by STANDARDS ACTIONS as defined
> > in RFC 2434? Also, the VERSION needs to be registered with
> > IANA and needs
> > to be stated in the instructions to the IANA.
> I've changed it to "Standards Action" in 9.1. Do you think I actually
> need to repeat this in 6.2.1?
The IANA section needs to be very clear. The IANA people really only look
there for their instructions.
> Does 9.2 also require "Standards Action" or is "Specification Required"
> (as it is currently) sufficient? I am a bit in doubt, maybe it's better
> to keep this consistent.
> duplicated to IANA considerations, but mentioning only SD-IDs there.
> Which brings up the question: must we put PARAM-Names under
> IANA-Control, too? It kind of looks so...
> I think talking about rate-limiting on the receiver's side does not make
> so much sense, as it will result in message loss in any case (at least
> with UDP transport). Do you think the proposed text is OK?
Looks good to me.
> However, this raises a question: should we allow experimental SD-PARAMs
> in standardized SD-IDs? Or should these only be allowed in experimental
> SD-IDs (x-)?
That's a question for the WG.
WG Chair hat OFF:
I'd suggest putting in a quick statement about allowing "x-<SD-PARAMs>" in
Eveyone: Get your thoughts in quickly on this.
> Chris, I am not sure if the "must" below must be in upper case (as it is
> no protocol related thing). I'd appreciate your advise:
> IANA must register the SD-IDs shown in table 4 below.
> ### ^^^^
You can leave it lowercase.
Syslog-sec mailing list