IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Int-area] Last Call: <draft-ietf-intarea-server-logging-recommendations-02.txt> (Logging recommendations for Internet facing servers) to BCP

Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr> Thu, 17 March 2011 16:32 UTC

Return-Path: <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
X-Original-To: int-area@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-area@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B1633A6A91 for <int-area@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 09:32:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.231
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.231 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.018, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dokT8ol0TDdD for <int-area@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 09:32:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (givry.fdupont.fr [91.121.26.85]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF4833A69FD for <int-area@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 09:32:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by givry.fdupont.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p2HGXgNr075334; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 17:33:42 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from dupont@givry.fdupont.fr)
Message-Id: <201103171633.p2HGXgNr075334@givry.fdupont.fr>
From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange-ftgroup.com
In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:56:41 +0100. <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F33C4DBA451C@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 17:33:42 +0100
Sender: Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr
Cc: "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Last Call: <draft-ietf-intarea-server-logging-recommendations-02.txt> (Logging recommendations for Internet facing servers) to BCP
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List <int-area.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/int-area>
List-Post: <mailto:int-area@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:32:18 -0000

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   Med: To understand the issue, I recommend you the following
   reading: http://haproxy.1wt.eu/download/1.5/doc/proxy-protocol.txt
   
   Med: You can make a quick search on the XFF practices in
   load-balances/proxies to see how it is used for logging purposes.

=> another basic questions: is any of these an IETF blessed protocol?
It doesn't seem to be the case so IMHO these protocols should adapt
to the logging recommendations, not the opposite, and of course
this should be done where these protocols were developed.

Regards

Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email