RE: [Syslog-sec] Wrapping up syslog-protocol and syslog-transport-udp

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

Hi Chris,

sorry for the late reply, we had a local holliday over here on monday
and I had a day off yesterday. I think there is nothing major for
syslog-protocol. My list is:

1. Syntax of facility
It was suggested that it should be alphanumeric, but so far there is no
strong support for this - if I don't here anything else, I will not
change the definition

2. Relationship to Alarm MIB
It was suggested that the text for the relationship should be changed.
(see http://www.syslog.cc/ietf/autoarc/msg01444.html). I would
appreciate to receive further comment on this.

3. Message Size and Fragmentation
This discussion re-started. My view is that we do not proceed any
further in this direction (for reasoning see
http://www.syslog.cc/ietf/autoarc/msg01446.html). I will NOT change the
draft except when I receive very strong reasoning to do so.

4. Truncation by SENDER
Implementation efforts indicate that the TRUNCATE field should also
support an option to indicate truncation right at the sender (see
http://www.syslog.cc/ietf/autoarc/msg01450.html). I am going to add this
to the draft if there is no objection (I just re-posted a message that
accidently went via private mail only).

5. IANA/vendor SD-IDs
I am going to follow Tom Petch's advise in
http://www.syslog.cc/ietf/autoarc/msg01451.html and will change the
wording but not the actual content.

All other things are resolved and merged into my local version of the
draft. I think I can post the next revision pretty soon (a new one is
due thanks to the recent feedback). Feedback on the mentioned issues is
appreciated as are any issues newly discovered or overlooked by me.

Thanks,
Rainer

> -----Original Message-----
> From: syslog-sec-bounces@www.employees.org 
> [mailto:syslog-sec-bounces@www.employees.org] On Behalf Of 
> Chris Lonvick
> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 2:26 PM
> To: syslog-sec@employees.org
> Subject: [Syslog-sec] Wrapping up syslog-protocol and 
> syslog-transport-udp
> 
> Hi Everyone,
> 
> I've been glad to see all of the discussion on the mailing list about
> these documents over the past few weeks.  I believe that it 
> shows that we
> have received sufficient review of these documents.
> 
> I've been travelling a lot recently and havn't been able to 
> keep up fully
> with everything.  I'd like to have Rainer and Anton provide a 
> list of open
> issues to the list.  Let's focus on these and get them addressed.  I'd
> like to get these things wrapped up and sent to the IESG 
> before the Paris
> IETF meeting.
> 
> Speaking of which, due to some family obligations I won't be 
> able to get
> to IETF 63.  :(  Does anyone feel that the WG needs to meet 
> at that time?
> If there is a strong consensus to meet then I'll find someone 
> to stand in
> for me and I'll get a slot on the agenda.
> 
> Thanks,
> Chris
> _______________________________________________
> Syslog-sec mailing list
> Syslog-sec@www.employees.org
> http://www.employees.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog-sec
> 
_______________________________________________
Syslog-sec mailing list
Syslog-sec@www.employees.org
http://www.employees.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog-sec