RE: [Syslog] timeline

Miao Fuyou <miaofy@huawei.com> Tue, 15 August 2006 01:07 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GCnPB-0004cR-AR; Mon, 14 Aug 2006 21:07:41 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GCnP9-0004ZX-JY for syslog@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Aug 2006 21:07:39 -0400
Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com ([61.144.161.54]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GCnP1-0001rd-Rm for syslog@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Aug 2006 21:07:39 -0400
Received: from huawei.com (szxga02-in [172.24.2.6]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTP id <0J400050RMKK6M@szxga02-in.huawei.com> for syslog@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:24:20 +0800 (CST)
Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.1.18]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTP id <0J4000BPMMKJUF@szxga02-in.huawei.com> for syslog@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:24:20 +0800 (CST)
Received: from m19684 ([10.111.12.140]) by szxml03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTPA id <0J4000AGRLX51V@szxml03-in.huawei.com> for syslog@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:10:21 +0800 (CST)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:06:39 +0800
From: Miao Fuyou <miaofy@huawei.com>
Subject: RE: [Syslog] timeline
In-reply-to: <577465F99B41C842AAFBE9ED71E70ABA174DEF@grfint2.intern.adiscon.com>
To: 'Rainer Gerhards' <rgerhards@hq.adiscon.com>
Message-id: <007f01c6c007$10ad8870$8c0c6f0a@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Thread-index: Aca8ow+og+vltxWXS/6dODLfiKq6xgAt1kYAAITYp+AAD6HKgAAVuHhA
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 21c69d3cfc2dd19218717dbe1d974352
Cc: syslog@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: syslog@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Issues in Network Event Logging <syslog.lists.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog>, <mailto:syslog-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/syslog>
List-Post: <mailto:syslog@lists.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:syslog-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog>, <mailto:syslog-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: syslog-bounces@lists.ietf.org

 
Hi, Rainer,

A new implementation could rely on byte-counting only and then delete LF
from the frame(appplication knows exactly where the LF is), it may not force
us to use escapes. For LF, I think it is difficult to get 100% compatibility
for a legacy implementation to comply TLS-transport without any change to
the code. At least, some imlementation may need to change CR LF to LF
because some implementations use CR LF rather than LF. So, it may be ok to
add several LOC to delete FRAME-LEN SP from the frame. 

I still prefer byte-counting only to byte-counting+LF even if it is a
feasible tradeoff.  

Miao

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rainer Gerhards [mailto:rgerhards@hq.adiscon.com] 
> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 10:18 PM
> To: Miao Fuyou
> Subject: RE: [Syslog] timeline
> 
> We should not go byte-counting + LF. This is the worst choice: it 
> 
> A) breaks compatibility
> B) Forces us to use escapes
> 
> So we get the bad of both worlds, without any benefits.
> 
> Rainer 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Miao Fuyou [mailto:miaofy@huawei.com]
> > Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 12:58 AM
> > To: 'Anton Okmianski (aokmians)'; 'David Harrington'; 
> syslog@ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: [Syslog] timeline
> > 
> > 
> > My vote: byte-counting only > byte-counting + LF > LF
>  
> 



_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
Syslog@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog