On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 07:22 -0700, Chris Lonvick wrote: > Hi, > > I agree; we don't want a vote here. We want strong technical reasons for > making a decision. >
As I see: We have a technically superior (we all seem to agree on this one) solution that breaks compatibility. Compatibility is important, this is documented in our charter. If we are to break compatibility we definitely need to have important incentives to do so. As I see the byte counter in itself is not important enough, I would simply forbid LF in messages as a compromise if that is acceptable to others. Thus we should not simply stop at adding the byte counter. There are other features currently missing from the protocol which can only be implemented with an incompatible change. An important example is application layer acknowledgements. (not the complex one in syslog/COOKED but a simpler scheme) What I'm afraid about this path is that we need to deliver something soon. -- Bazsi _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
