Subject: [Syslog] #7, field order

From: "Rainer Gerhards" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 10:38:36 +0100

Darren,

that's why I take your comment not seriously: 

> > data for that field.
> > 
> > If you don't understand the difference here, I think the fields need
> > to be defined something like this:
> > 
> > field ::= missing | non-dash | PRINTUSASCII*1 PRINTUSASCII*255
> > missing ::= "-"
> 
> And as someone else pointed out to me, PRINTUSASCII includes the space
> charactr (0x20), which is used as the field delimeter.  This needs to
> be fixed too.

If you would look at the ABNF, you would find

PRINTUSASCII    = %d33-126

This is the problem with your comments: you claim things while at the
same time you show that you are uninformed (at best). I believe in peer
review, not in peer rumor... I assign peers some credibility and yours
has gotten quite low over time. It's my personal judgement, but again I
am stating everything honestly on-list so that others thinking your way
can add their comments, which would obviously increase their weight. I
guess that's common sense and not just "my party" ;)  [but I have to
admit that I personally do not care about what you think about me and
"my party"].

As another technical comment, "-" for me is proper field content. It is
just a special value which indicates a void value and these semantics
are clearly described in the text. I have to admit I do not know any way
how I could add such semantics to the grammer - your grammer above does
the same as my grammer with the exception that it is more verbose. The
resulting parser will be the same (because you obviously allow "-" by
'missing | ...').

On the HOSTNAME, I am refering to STD 13, which I consider to be
sufficient. Take note that IP V6 representations must be allowed.

So all in all, I do not see any need for change (maybe the name
PRINTUSASCII, as it seems to be confusing to people not involved with
the work - no, not (just) kidding, this might actually be an issue).

Rainer

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

---

From: Darren Reed <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 00:23:26 +1100 (EST)

> If you would look at the ABNF, you would find

*shrug* I'm just repeating what someone else thought was an issue.

> resulting parser will be the same (because you obviously allow "-" by

You want to use "-" to mean that there is no value for that field
present, therefore you must make the grammar support the distinction
between having a value there and not having a value there.

> sufficient. Take note that IP V6 representations must be allowed.

Right.  So look at what your definitition allows and then compare
that with STD 13 (which is RFC 1035 that I was referring to.)
RFC 3490 deals with internationalising domain names.

I'd suggest reading section 2.3.1 of STD 13 more closely, along with
the section in 3.1 around where it says "strongly recommend".  

I think you are far better off just saying 'See RFC xxxx' or 'See IETF
for latest hostname specification' than trying to nail it here.

Darren