Extracting one of the two unresolved issues "> > 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.] " RFC20/RFC020/RFC0020 says that LF is 0/10 and I do not think that it has changed since:-)
Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Lonvick" <[email protected]> To: "tom.petch" <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 10:52 PM Subject: Re: [Syslog] Review comments on draft-gerhards-syslog-plain-tcp-01.txt > 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
