+1 dbh
> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 5:24 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected] > Subject: Note on reliability (was: RE: Subject Name > verification policy) > > 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
