On Tue, 2006-07-04 at 05:27 +1000, Darren Reed wrote: > Chris, > > The approach I'd like to take is to see what Balazs Scheidler can > come up with, that is different to the proposed approach, to make > syslog function over a TLS transport in syslog-ng and look at turning > that into an i-d. > > While it may not guarantee us any better situation with respect to > patents, etc, I have more faith working on documenting something > that is written to be open and free than involving people who have > a financial interest in the protocol going in certain diretions. > > I suppose this is a get working code first and then refine/ > document it.
Sorry, for being absent from the group for a couple of weeks, I was getting married and it took some time and distracted a bit from my work. But I'm back again. About the proposal. Thanks Darren, I'm honored. However, I'm not sure this is a very good idea. I was really pondering with the idea of implementing something in syslog-ng that works now and avoid waiting for the results of this group indefinitely. However I don't think this would respect the work of this group, and probably what I'd come up with would not be that different from what was defined here so far, especially as I was trying to be involved in the discussion. RFC3195bis is a nice idea, even though I previously disliked that protocol myself. I'll have to reread that RFC to form my opinion. -- Bazsi _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
