RE: [Syslog-sec] Detailed Review Comments on Syslog Protocol -09-Part II

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

Tom,

thanks for this suggestion, too. I've used the first wording you
provided. I still think that the definition of sender does not change
from section 3, as 3 says "An application that can generate a syslog
message is called a sender". Anyhow, it obviously causes confusion and
so it is better to try to sort this out.

As a side note, I will submit the updated ID tomorrow or monday if I do
not hear any other comments.

Thanks again for all the help,
Rainer

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Petch [mailto:nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com] 
> Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2005 9:38 PM
> To: Rainer Gerhards
> Subject: Re: [Syslog-sec] Detailed Review Comments on Syslog 
> Protocol -09-Part II
> 
> I do not think that it is 'instance' per se that confused me, 
> it is 'instance of
> the sender'.  'Sender' has been given a technical meaning in 
> section 3 and the
> usage here is different, meaning only a part of sender as used before.
> So make it more specific, such as 'instance of the sender's 
> syslog process' (you
> do refer to process id just after)
> 
> Alternatively use a more process-oriented word such 'execution'.
> 
> Tom Petch
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rainer Gerhards" <rgerhards@hq.adiscon.com>
> To: "Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com>
> Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 4:45 PM
> Subject: RE: [Syslog-sec] Detailed Review Comments on Syslog 
> Protocol -09-Part
> II
> <snip>
> I also have seen that "instance" is probably a bad word, but I lack a
> better one. "Instance" is well defined in the software 
> development space
> (at least I think), but this understanding of instance is 
> obviously not
> universal. A suggestion for a better word would be much appreciated.
> Others might call an instance a reboot, run, job, process, process
> space, incarnation, physical representation, just to give 
> some examples
> (which I think make up for equally-bad words in this context here).
> 
> Rainer
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tom Petch [mailto:nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 2:56 PM
> > To: Rainer Gerhards; syslog-sec@employees.org
> > Subject: Re: [Syslog-sec] Detailed Review Comments on Syslog
> > Protocol -09-Part II
> >
> > <below>
> > Tom Petch
> >
> <snip>
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
Syslog-sec mailing list
Syslog-sec@www.employees.org
http://www.employees.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog-sec