Good point. I am considering make the version only available at the beginning of Syslog messages stream to reduce redundency. But, I don't like capabilies negotiation here because it adds extra complexity to implementation.
Thanks! MIao > -----Original Message----- > From: Balazs Scheidler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 3:19 PM > To: Chris Lonvick > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: version field in syslog-tls - was: RE: [Syslog] > Working Group Last Call: syslog-tls document > > On Mon, 2006-09-04 at 15:49 -0700, Chris Lonvick wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > Please do consider the version field. If we don't have > one, we would > > have to live forever with the decisions we are making now. > Having a > > version number in there would allow a future group to > re-decide things > > (like byte-count v. special character) and to just change > the version > > number rather than go asking for a new port number - or > have a flag day. > > > > Please review the document and send in your thoughts on this. > > Sending the version field is a good idea in general, however > I feel that adding it to _every single_ message in a > conversation is too redundant, apart from the extra bandwidth > used, it causes ambiguities what to do when different > messages use a different version number. > > The version should be associated with the channel, and not > individual messages. > > Having a simple negotiation at the start would IMHO be way better. > Something like: > > HELLO <capabilities> > OK <capabilities> > START > OK > <message stream> > > -- > Bazsi > > > _______________________________________________ > Syslog mailing list > [email protected] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog > _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
