Subject: [Syslog-sec] -protocol: describing relays

From: "Rainer Gerhards" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 11:12:08 +0200

Anton comments on the description of relays:

####
Not sure about this. I would thing relay is also a "syslog server".
Better omit. We don't need to mention legacy terminology if it is
confusing. 
####

I think the description of a relay as a separate entitiy is not legacy,
but vital. If we look at RFC 3195/COOKED, there are definitely different
rules for relays than for normal collectors. I think relays have very
special operations and as such I think we should describe this entity.

Comments?

Rainer
_______________________________________________
Syslog-sec mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.employees.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog-sec

---

From: "Anton Okmianski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 11:08:20 -0400

Some context would help...

> ####
> Not sure about this. I would thing relay is also a "syslog 
> server". Better omit. We don't need to mention legacy 
> terminology if it is confusing. 
> ####

My comment was on the last bullet point in this paragraph:

The following definitions will be used in this document:
o An application that can generate a message will be called a
"sender".
o An application that can receive a message will be called a
"receiver".
o An application that can receive the message and forward it to
another machine will be called a "relay".
o An application that receives the message and does not relay it to
any other receivers will be called a "collector". This has been
commonly known as a "syslog server".

I said that if you call collector a "syslog server", then you should
also mention it about relay.  I suggested that we don't need the
legacy term "syslog server". Instead you defined the term "syslog
receiver". This comment was not about removing notion of relay!

Rainer, when viewing comments do: View/Comments/Show List.  This will
show better markers for which specific spot in the text the comment
applies. 

Anton. 

> 
> I think the description of a relay as a separate entitiy is 
> not legacy, but vital. If we look at RFC 3195/COOKED, there 
> are definitely different rules for relays than for normal 
> collectors. I think relays have very special operations and 
> as such I think we should describe this entity.
> 
> Comments?
> 
> Rainer