Hi all,
I know I'm not very active on this list, but I do monitor all of the traffic.
I'm totally in favor of the change. It makes sense, and the last thing we need
is to publish a mistake at the last minute because we're not willing to make a
small change so late in the game. Let's do it right the first time.
--john
>>> Juergen Schoenwaelder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/13/06 3:44 AM >>>
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 05:54:28PM +0800, Miao Fuyou wrote:
> My co-workers in university also encountered this issue when implementing
> syslog-tls, and used a mechanism similiar to the one of Rainer to overcome
> it. As I am aware of, currently there are two syslog framing implementation
> and both the implementaters considered this boundary condition. So, my
> perception is careful implementater would have no problem, and a note for
> reminding is enough.
The fact that two implementars did already run into this is a good
indication that perhaps the format should be changed to what
implementors expect and find easier.
We seem to have some evidence that the current format makes things
more complex to get implemented than it needs to be and I have not
seen yet a technical argument in favor of the current format.
/js
--
Juergen Schoenwaelder {International|Jacobs} University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/> P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany
_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
