Hello Martin, I have clarified in the text that what I think it is you are suggesting will be allowed. But it is not a time stamp. A time stamp would be something like 2008-10-16T20:23:03+02:00.
While it still suggests that the RSID should increase by 1, it is not required. It is merely required to simply increase (no problem with an RSID reflecting a "time stamp"), unless it is set to 0. Here is what the section in question reads now: The Reboot Session ID is a decimal value that has a length between 1 and 10 octets. The acceptable values for this are between 0 and 9999999999. Leading zeroes MUST be omitted. A Reboot Session ID is expected to increase whenever an originator reboots in order to allow collectors to distinguish messages and message signatures across reboots. The Reboot Session ID SHOULD increase by 1, starting with a value of 1. Note that in this case, an originator is required to retain the previous Reboot Session ID across reboots. In cases where an originator is not able to guarantee that the Reboot Session ID is always increased after a reboot, the Reboot Session ID MUST always be set to a value of 0. If the value can no longer be increased (e.g., because it reaches 9999999999), then manual intervention may be required to subsequently reset it. Implementors MAY wish to consider using the snmpEngineBoots value as a source for this counter as defined in [RFC3414]. Does this accommodate your concern? --- Alex -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Martin Schütte Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 1:15 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Syslog] Syslog-sign: Last minor clarifications/nits Alexander Clemm (alex) schrieb: > On the first item, yes, the first item (RSID) is clearly a counter; a > time stamp cannot be used, nor can a value that is arbitrarily > generated. > > To use a time stamp would require a parameter that is differently > defined than the current RSID. Excuse my persistance here, but: why? Especially if they do not have to be sequential. Is there any reason to define RSID as a counter instead of an increasing ID? When is a counter like 1-2-5-6 better than IDs like 1234400000-1234500000-1234600000-12374700000? -- Martin _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
