Hi Rainer, Happy new year!
Your idea of ignoring the leap seconds sounds very sensible to me. Cheers Andrew -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rainer Gerhards Sent: Monday, 2 January 2006 11:42 p.m. To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Syslog] TIMESTAMP and leap seconds Hi all, first of all, I would like to whish a happy new year to each of you! I am now back in the office and at final edits to syslog-protocol. I discovered one more thing: The current draft supports leap seconds. There already is a lot of discussion whether or not leap seconds should be introduced in the future. However, the way leap seconds are handled will be largely invisible to a syslog sender (except where it is sitting on a time-tracking device, which is highly unlikely). On the other hand, leap second processing can be pretty complicated at the receiver side. I expect that most implementations will not abide strict handling in any case. As such, I suggest that leap second support be removed from the TIMESTAMP. Similarily, a sender with unknown time should then not use the special TIMESTAMP but "-", which also keeps it consistent with the rest of the header NIL values. If nobody objects, I'll change this during the edit. 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
