sorry, folks, just a short note: unfortunately, I got totally swamped with a couple of really important issues (to me, of course). Being in a small shop, it is not easy to always be as responsive as one likes. I will try to follow up ASAP, but probably not before Monday.
Rainer > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of tom.petch > Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 8:44 PM > To: Chris Lonvick > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Syslog] Review comments ondraft-gerhards-syslog-plain- > tcp-01.txt > > 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 _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
