Subject: [Syslog] timeline

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 13:33:15 -0400

Hi,

Chris and I are working on a schedule to help the WG meet its
deliverables. We have not yet agreed on all the specific dates because
Chris is on (another) vacation, but should have a schedule posted
within a few days. 

Here are two things we need to resolve soon.

1) whether draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls should use byte-counting,
special character, or both, including which special character. We want
to finalize this WG decision by August 18.

2) whether draft-ietf-syslog-device-mib represents WG consensus on
what needs to be managed in the protocol, udp, tls, and sign
documents, and if not, what needs to be changed to represent WG
consensus. We want to finalize this WG decision by August 18 as well.

The chairs will be starting WGLCs on each document so we can submit
them to the IESG by the November deadlines. The first two WGLCs will
be for draft-ietf-syslog-protocol and draft-ietf-syslog-transport-udp,
so you can get started ahead of time to do these reviews if you want.
WGLCs will probably start Monday Aug 14.

David Harrington
[email-masked] 
[email-masked]
[email-masked]
co-chair, Syslog WG 

_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog

---

From: "Rainer Gerhards" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 05:47:33 +0200

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Harrington [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 11:33 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Syslog] timeline
> 
> Hi,
> 

My choices in order of preferrence, in that order:

1 (best) LF as delimiter, no byte counting 
  (because of compatibilit with existing solutions)
  we need to escape LF and the escape character
  inside MSG, NO byte-couting

2 byte-counting only

3 (worst choice) LF & byte-couting (see requirements
  for LF at 1

Rainer

---

From: "tom.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 12:20:13 +0200

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 7:33 PM
Subject: [Syslog] timeline

> to finalize this WG decision by August 18.

LF as delimiter, no byte counting
As Rainer says, we want compatibility with existing solutions. It is not as if
we have a green field site and can ignore the marketplace.

Tom Petch

---

From: Balazs Scheidler <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 13:32:14 +0200

> > to finalize this WG decision by August 18.

LF as delimiter, no byte counting. 

-- 
Bazsi

---

From: "tom.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 18:51:02 +0200

> Here are two things we need to resolve soon.
<snip>
> consensus. We want to finalize this WG decision by August 18 as well.

I still have trouble with the mib document, not for any mibby reason but simply
because, as I commented on the previous version, it seems to be written in a
different language to the other I-D and, insofar as I understand that language,
seems to be describing a different set of concepts to the other documents.  As I
said, this is a question of reading the introductory text, no network management
skills required, to see, if like me, you think this out of line with the other
I-D.

TOm Petch