Darren: > > > > MSG-size-in-octets would be the size of the MSG part > (just that!) in > > > > octets. Counting just the MSG part is sufficient, as > the rest of the > > > > message consists of fields properly delimited. The size is > > > probably most > > > > useful for binary data. > > > > > > What happens if the message is truncated? > > > > Good question. I'd say the size would need to be adjusted. > > What happens if/when the SD data is truncated and either the MSG size > is lost or truncated half way through ? > > I believe there is very little added value of having the message > size as part of SD data - or at least not enough to warrant it > being treated as a mandatory/required field to include.
I have to admit I do not like to agree with your argument, but I do ;) It's causing more trouble than it is worth. Let's forget about it. (BTW: SD elements are not required so far and I think it would be a bad idea to do so, at least for the inital version - if it is required, why isn't it in the header?) Rainer _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
