Just to clarify, Kiwi Syslog V8 currently sends CRLF as the TCP delimiter, but will accept LF, CR, CRLF, LFCR and NULL as valid delimiters on the incoming stream. We will be changing our sending delimiter to LF in the near future to make it more compatible with syslog-ng etc.
Cheers Andrew Rainer, Stunnel is a secure wrapper for TCP stream. Actually delimiting Syslog is done in the TCP part rather than TLS (or stunnel) part in Syslog-ng with stunnel. One can use stunnel to secure any Syslog TCP transport, such as rsyslog and kiwisyslog, and kiwisyslog does use CRLF for delimiting (http://www.kiwisyslog.com/whats_new_syslog.htm). Stunnel implementation is different from Syslog TLS transport, and I don' t think it is the exact implementation of Syslog TLS transport. I have not been aware of a Syslog implementation in TLS-transport style till now. So, most of the implementation may be modified, slightly or heavily, to existing code to get it comply to the specification. Miao > -----Original Message----- > From: Rainer Gerhards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 12:41 PM > To: Miao Fuyou > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Syslog] timeline > > Miao, > > I am actually concerned about backward compatibility with > existing code > *without* the need to upgrade any of that code. As you know, > deployed software tends to stick. > > If we use just LF, existing, deployed technology (e.g. syslog-ng with > stunnel) would be able to understand a message sent from a "new style" > syslogd. Having the octet count in front of the message > removes that ability, as the old syslogd will no longer see > the <pri> at the start of the message. > > I agree that it is trivial to modify code to take care for > the octet counter. But this is not my concern. My concern is > that I would like to achive as good as possible compatibility > with existing deployed (aka > "unmodified") technology. I should have been more specific on that. > Sorry for the omission... > > I am also unaware of any implementation that mandates CR LF > over just LF. Could you let me know which ones are these? > > Rainer > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Miao Fuyou [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 7:07 PM > > To: Rainer Gerhards > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: [Syslog] timeline > > > > > > 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 _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
