Anton, Thanks for the clarification. Your wording is correct. SD-ID will also have "-" to indicate that it is "undefined", which in this case actually means there is none.
Rainer > -----Original Message----- > From: Anton Okmianski (aokmians) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 7:11 PM > To: Rainer Gerhards; Tom Petch; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Syslog] #7 field order > > Rainer, a better way to phrase this is may be that none of > the fields are optional (except for maybe SD, depending on > how you define the separators). Some fields just have > special values which are allowed to designate an "undefined > value". So, the fields are always there. > > Anton. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rainer Gerhards > > Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 10:45 AM > > To: Tom Petch; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: [Syslog] #7 field order > > > > Tom, > > > > well-spotted. Indeed, PRI is NOT optional. The only one, as > > far as I am concerned. > > > > Rainer > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Tom Petch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 12:35 PM > > > To: Rainer Gerhards; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: [Syslog] #7 field order > > > > > > I was thinking that <PRI> is also not optional. > > > > > > Tom Petch > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Rainer Gerhards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 10:06 AM > > > Subject: RE: [Syslog] #7 field order > > > > > > > > > I just got private mail if a missing field is denoted by > > "-". This is > > > the case. Optional fields should be all but VERSION. > > > > > > Rainer > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > > Rainer Gerhards > > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 9:37 AM > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Subject: [Syslog] #7 field order > > > > > > > > WG, > > > > > > > > there has not been much discussion about the header > > fields and their > > > > order recently. I think this is a sign the issue has been > > > settled. To > > > > make sure I got the right understanding of the resulting > > > consensus, I > > > > propose that we use the following format: > > > > > > > > <PRI>VERSION SP TIMESTAMP SP HOSTNAME SP APP-NAME SP > > PROCID SP MSGID > > > > SP [SD-ID]s SP MSG > > > > > > > > That is the format that also proven to be quite useful > during my > > > > proof-of-concept implementation. > > > > > > > > If somebody objects, please do that now. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Rainer > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Syslog mailing list > > Syslog@lists.ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog > > > _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
