Hi, Rainer, A new implementation could rely on byte-counting only and then delete LF from the frame(appplication knows exactly where the LF is), it may not force us to use escapes. For LF, I think it is difficult to get 100% compatibility for a legacy implementation to comply TLS-transport without any change to the code. At least, some imlementation may need to change CR LF to LF because some implementations use CR LF rather than LF. So, it may be ok to add several LOC to delete FRAME-LEN SP from the frame.
I still prefer byte-counting only to byte-counting+LF even if it is a feasible tradeoff. Miao > -----Original Message----- > From: Rainer Gerhards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 10:18 PM > To: Miao Fuyou > Subject: RE: [Syslog] timeline > > We should not go byte-counting + LF. This is the worst choice: it > > A) breaks compatibility > B) Forces us to use escapes > > So we get the bad of both worlds, without any benefits. > > Rainer > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Miao Fuyou [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 12:58 AM > > To: 'Anton Okmianski (aokmians)'; 'David Harrington'; > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: [Syslog] timeline > > > > > > My vote: byte-counting only > byte-counting + LF > LF > > _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
