Hi Chris, You have framed the question incorrectly.
This discussion is about the "minimum maximum message length", not the "maximum message length". This is about "at least this big" and not about "no bigger than". All receivers MUST be able to handle the minimum maximum message size X, and it is RECOMMENDED that all receivers be able to handle messages of size Y, and receivers MAY choose to support sizes larger than Y. Senders can rest assured that any standard-compliant receiver WILL be able to handle messages of size X, so the sender can send a message of that size or less and not worry about it being truncated or dropped (so if it is a critical message, keep the message shorter than X). Senders can rest assured that most, but not all, compliant receivers WILL be able to handle messages of size Y, but there is a chance of the message being truncated or dropped, so if the message is important but you can live with it being dropped, then keep the message shorter than Y, and it will usually work. Senders can try to send messages larger than Y, but many receivers will be unable to handle such a size. Transport mappings may apply different constraints, but regardless of the transport, a compliant implementation MUST support the transport-independent limit X, and it is RECOMMENDED that the transport-independent limit Y be supported for improved interoperability. If desired an implemntation MAY allow larger sizes. Writers of transport mappings should pay attention to these limits. All transport mappings MUST support at least size X. If the transport can support size Y, then the transport mapping contraint should be set to no less than size Y, and for consistency with the transport-independent recommendation, SHOULD RECOMMEND support for size Y (rather than for size Y+1 or Y+2 or Y-7 or ...). If a transport mapping can handle sizes larger than Y, then the transport mapping can support larger messages, and MAY choose to set transport-specific contraints larger than Y. Is this strictly about which transport mapping is used? No, it is not! It establishes some standards that should be followed regardless of the transport used, if possible - all implementations MUST support size X, SHOULD support size Y, and MAY support larger sizes. Dbh > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Lonvick > Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 2:08 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Syslog] #2, max message size - Need to resolve this > > Hi Folks, > > We need to resolve this one. I've heard from Rainer and a very few > others. I'd like to hear from more people on this. Choose one: > > __ The maximum message length needs to be defined in syslog-protocol. > > > __ The maximum message length should be defined in the transport > documents. > > > __ I have a different idea.... > > > Please VOTE NOW! > > Thanks, > Chris > > _______________________________________________ > Syslog mailing list > [email protected] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog > _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
