Hi Rainer,

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.

Be 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...

Yup.  :)

> 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
any SD-IDs.
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

Reply via email to