> Darren, > > an "I would like to see this too" is a good indication that a > controversal feature is required. I have honestly posted what I think so > that all others can jump in. For the rest, see the archive ;)
Well, I don't want to disappoint you, but if someone else comes up with something, I'm not going to "me too" it unless you actively disagree with it. Sorry if that spoils your party. Most of us have better things to do than send and receive "me too" emails unless they are a vote. Back to the issue at hand...for #7, field order...or field details The "HOSTNAME" field should be constrained, in its definition, to match that accepted for FQDNs. "PRINTUSASCII" is too wide. I believe you need to read RFC 1035. Similarly, I'd like to see APP-NAME, PROCID and MSGID refined to be less than the entire character set. A contradiction in syslog-protocol is allowing PRINTUSASCII for fields but a field of "-" is used to indicate it is not there. ..I can imagine some people would like to consider that the HOSTNAME field should be unrestricted to allow for extended character set names. Allowing and supporting that should come when & if the IETF decides to go that way. Otherwise the comment about "-" is that your grammar is wrong because you define various fields to be PRINTUSASCII*256 (or whatever the length is), which specifically includes "-" as being a valid field name. It isn't. You document it as representing the absence of any meaningful data for that field. If you don't understand the difference here, I think the fields need to be defined something like this: field ::= missing | non-dash | PRINTUSASCII*1 PRINTUSASCII*255 missing ::= "-" Darren _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
