Hi Alex, By "timestamp", at least I've meant "POSIX timestamp (seconds since 1/1/1970) when the syslog daemon started". But even with the new text, I'm still having trouble determining whether this would be an acceptable value for RSID...
Best regards, Pasi > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ext Alexander > Clemm (alex) > Sent: 22 March, 2009 19:06 > To: Martin Schütte; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Syslog] Syslog-sign: Last minor clarifications/nits > > 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 > _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
