Subject: Re: [Syslog] #2, max message size

From: "Tom Petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 09:02:53 +0100

As party to the original consensus, as reflected in -15, I know of nothing new
that causes me to want to change anything.

I note too that there is support for something in this area in netconf (amongst
other application protocols), where the issue is less acute since the protocol
is duplex.

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rainer Gerhards" <[email-masked]>
To: "Darren Reed" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 9:42 AM
Subject: RE: [Syslog] #2, max message size

Darren,

> The only place a message size limit should be specified is in
> a transport
> mapping.  If it's in -15 then it should be removed.  Limits
> of all sizes
> and types do nothing but contribute to aging of a protocol.

-protocol-15 is a compromise after a very long discussion. It says:

-----
   A receiver MUST be able to accept messages up to and including 480
   octets in length.  For interoperability reasons, all receiver
   implementations SHOULD be able to accept messages up to and including
   2,048 octets in length.

   If a receiver receives a message with a length larger than 2,048
   octets, or larger than it supports, the receiver MAY discard the
   message or truncate the payload.
-----

I think this text is useful. It keeps the door open for any size
messages while still allowing it to be restricted by the transport
mappings and individual implementations (e.g. on low-end embedded
devices). It cautions implementors against being too verbose but also
sets a lower limit that each implementation can assume to be received.

I think we should continue to use this text. Do you agree?

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