----- Original Message -----
From: "Darren Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Tom Petch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 11:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Syslog] Revised proposed charter

> [ 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

Mmmm I agree that sacrifices are needed but am puzzled by your reference to
first draft.  Syslog-protocol is at -15 and represents a (fragile) consensus
about XML, null octet, truncation etc.  What I don't understand is that
Vancouver seems to say that we must reinstate <PRI> - ok - and while we are at
it, go back to square one on lots of other things.  If that is how it is, so be
it (but I am still puzzled).

Tom Petch

Syslog mailing list

Reply via email to