> > 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 ::= "-"
And as someone else pointed out to me, PRINTUSASCII includes the space charactr (0x20), which is used as the field delimeter. This needs to be fixed too. Darren _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
