> Andrew, > > > Also, if we are to transport syslog over TCP at some stage, > > we need to keep > > a delimiter character free from use in the message. Again, a > > LF would be a > > good choice for this delimiter. > > Here, I disagree. I think we can not set aside a character for this. If > we go for TCP, let's do octet-couting. Its reliable, efficient and > proven. Anyhow, we are not yet doing a TCP mapping, so I suggest we save > this discussion until later.
Why not use LF? It will work. There are syslogd implementations about that use LF as a record delimeter. In other emails you're saying "we must support binary because some people are going to use this". Now we've got people that support LF as a record delimeter already but you don't want to take this into account. Why does what one vendor is going to do mean more than what other vendors are already doing ? Is there bias here somewhere ? Do you have any particular preference based on work you've done or through some sort of affiliation ? If you want to discount use of LF as a record delimeter then there is no reason we must support use of binary because what vendors are doing is obviously irrelevant. Darren _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
