Hi Tom,
I got all excited about the next version of draft-ietf-syslog-dtls getting
in before the cutoff time that I went ahead and edited plain-tcp. :-)
Comments in-line.
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010, tom.petch wrote:
Review comments on tcp-01 (as the subject line says:-)
What is the intended status? The I-D does not say; I would aim for Standards
Track.
CML> Yup. Now it says Standards Track.
s.3
"Traditional TCP implementations do not use any backchannel mechanism "
suggest
"Traditional implementations of syslog over TCP do not use any backchannel
mechanism "
CML> Sounds good.
"abilities of TCP"
suggest
"capabilities of TCP"
CML> Good.
s3.3
I think that the ABNF rules should be amended so that the rule with
=
comes before the rule with
=/
CML> Makes sense.
Add at the end
" SYSLOG-MSG is defined in the syslog protocol [RFC5424]."
CML> Added.
A.2
%d10 is LF not NL; I do not know which you mean.
CML> I've seen it called both. I'm trying to track down a normative
reference. Do you have one? Till then, I'm going to leave it as NL
(%d10). [Pending review by Rainer.]
And, perhaps the most important, somewhere I think you should cover the nature
of TCP; give it a message and it will buffer it, may be for days, and then lose
it because the connection is taken down. Should you recommend the use of PSH
for all messages?
CML> I added a paragraph near the end of the Introduction about that.
(Which I have not run by Rainer yet. :) Let me know if that's what you
were thinking about.
CML> We appreciate the review. The updated draft should be out soon and
I'll ask for another review of it rsn.
Thanks,
Chris
Tom Petch
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Lonvick" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 7:24 PM
Subject: [Syslog] Review comments on draft-gerhards-syslog-plain-tcp-01.txt
Hi Folks,
_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
