Hi,
We started syslog-sign before we had Structured Data, and the original
author was creating a mechanism that could be used within the RFC 3164
framework. However, times have changed. We now have syslog-protocol with
SDs.
Does the WG feel that syslog-sign should contain normative information on
how to utilize the syslog-sign mechanism in the RFC 3164 format?
Answers can be:
__ Yes - leave it, it forms a bridge for transition,
__ No - take it out, we need to move the world along,
__ Maybe - move it to a non-normative appendix
Thanks,
Chris
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 15:51:25 +0100
From: Rainer Gerhards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Chris Lonvick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: APP-NAME,
PROCID and MSGID in syslog sign - was: RE: [Syslog] clonvick WGLC Review of
draft-ietf-syslog-sign-20.txt
Chris,
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Lonvick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 3:37 PM
To: Rainer Gerhards
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: APP-NAME, PROCID and MSGID in syslog sign - was: RE: [Syslog]
clonvick WGLC Review of draft-ietf-syslog-sign-20.txt
---some elided for brevity---
With RFC 3164 syslog, we obviously can not totally be assured that the
SD-ID will be valid. But we should keep in mind that we most probably
will try to obsolete 3164 either via -protocol or a follow-up RFC. I
already questioned the point in supporting this (informational!)
document in a new standard. Is this really a wise idea?
Rainer
---remainder elided for brevity---
_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
