David Harrington wrote: > [...] > > All of this discussion would really be advanced education on > > the error recovery capabilities of TCP and is not syslog specific > > in any way. > > I disagree. I think Rainer pointed out that the lack of an application > ACK limits reliability, and the lack of a syslog ACK is definitely > syslog specific. A small note to this effect in the security > considerations should be adequate.
I agree that a short note would be good. Here's my proposal, slightly expanding Rainer's text: It should be noted that the syslog transport specified in this document does not use application-layer acknowledgments. TCP uses retransmissions to provide protection against some forms of data loss. However, if the TCP connection (or TLS session) is broken for some reason (or closed by the transport receiver), the syslog transport sender cannot always know what messages were successfully delivered to the syslog application at the other end. Best regards, Pasi _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
