<inline tp> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anton Okmianski (aokmians)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "David Harrington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Rainer Gerhards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 8:04 PM Subject: RE: [Syslog] byte-counting vs special character
I second these concerns. Escaping requirements result in a more interdependent layering, which is a weaker architecture (not to mention the overhead to a new standard). The syslog transport would need to mess with payload instead of treating it as opaque blob with easily known length. Not nice. Imagine TCP/IP escaping all payload to separate datagrams and segments. Escaping of magic characters is IMHO clearly a hack and should not be put into a standard! <tp> Well, I think you just wrote off most of the IETF STANDARDs that deal with character-based protocols (like the e-mail we are using to communicate(?)). A set of characters, of symbols, in a 'message' is encoded, given a number, be it 6 or 8 or 16 or whatever number of bits. If that bit pattern conflicts with the 'control' aspects of a protocol, then that bit pattern must be 'transfer-encoded' so that it does not appear per se on the wire. That is what base64 or quoted-printable do for e-mail. So we are talking of using a well-understood, widely deployed piece of protocol architecture to solve a common problem. </tp> <snip/> _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
