[Syslog-sec] -transport-udp, section 4.4 - UDP RFCs

["Rainer Gerhards" <rgerhards@hq.adiscon.com>]

WG,

Section 4.4 specifically requires certain RFC formats for UDP. I wonder
if it wouldn't be wiser to just say "UDP" without pointing to a specific
RFC. The reasoning behind this is that e.g. a revision to RFC2640 that
leads to a new RFC number would also require a revision of
-transport-udp just to update the RFC number. As of my understanding,
the term "UDP" should be well defined enough so that there is no need to
point to the specific RFCs. This is just a thought, I am neiter sure
about it nor do I have a strong opinion.

Rainer
_______________________________________________
Syslog-sec mailing list
Syslog-sec@www.employees.org
http://www.employees.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog-sec