Subject: RE: [Syslog] delineated datagrams

From: "Nagaraj Varadharajan \(nagarajv\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 12:50:43 -0700

Sorry for jumping in late on this topic and also pardon me if I have not
understood the discussion correctly.

My thought is that the easiest way syslog over tls will be implemented
will be by existing apps taking what they have for syslog over TCP and
adding the TLS layer. So in terms of easy implementation and adoption,
it may be good to support whatever is being done for tcp syslogs now. I
believe that LF as a separator is quite common  currently. 
However, I do agree that this is a good opportunity to upgrade to a
better method. My only concern is that this should not force
applications to drastically change their underlying syslog
implementations

Regards,
Nagaraj

-----Original Message-----
From: Rainer Gerhards [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 9:22 PM
To: Balazs Scheidler
Cc: [email-masked]; Tom Petch
Subject: RE: [Syslog] delineated datagrams

> Maybe this already has been said ;)
> 
> This makes sense. What about other control characters?
> 

We need to differentiate between on-the-wire format and storage format.
On-the-wire, I would escape only LF and the escape character. In
storage, I would escape any control character (which can be quite tricky
with Unicode). Our current scope (and IETF scope) is on-the-wire. So I
propose not to mangle any more characters than absolutely necessary.

Rainer

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

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