[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ] > [tp] Strange, I was thiinking quite the opposite, that we had a fragile > consensus which disappeared in > Vancouver and has not been refound. Looking back at the messages posted > in the past few days, about what should be in the header in what order, > I was thinking, > what now? because I see no consensus, rather the re-emergence of many > different points of view. > > So while the proposed charter looks ok, because it does not go into that > detail, I do not see how we progress any further, into the next level of > technical detail, of what and how should be in the header.
So long as everyone wants to solve every problem in one single RFC, we will go nowhere. For those people I say "go use 3195" and stop bothering the group with yoru quibbles. All this nonsense about NUL characters and message lengths, XML, structured data, etc. Too many people here have a pet peeve they want to see the first draft solve and seem determined to overload it with that so that they're covered/happy. This is not a way forward but a way backward. We need to evolve the syslog protocol and we need to do that starting with the basic protocol that has been used for years, build upon that in a structured manner and conquer one piece of the problem at a time. If one thing is clear from this, it won't be possible to write a single document that makes good all of the evolutions of the syslog protocol. Some are going to have to be put in the "bad basket." If that happens to be yours, or mine, stiff. We're all going to need to make sacrifices and changes if anything useful is going to be achieved. Darren _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
