Hi, sorry for raising an additional suggest, but I am currently implementing and as Albert said, questions arise while doing so ;)
Cookies, as first appeared in syslog-sign, are a simple, efficient and elegant way to add new functionality to syslog without the need to change anything in older code. I assume this WG will make use of more cookies as need arises. On the other hand, the same concept is also good for vendor-specific extensions. For example, I am currently designing a way to let windows event log data travel unaltered via syslog. I am very tempted to do this with a cookie and will probably do so. This raises the question of standard vs. vendor cookies. I wonder if some of the upcoming IDs (-international?) should formalize the cookie as an optional field. If it starts with @#, then it is an IETF cookie (IANA?), but if it starts with #@ (or @#X-)it is a vendor cookie. This would remove any doubt, especially when more people begin to adopt this scheme. Any thoughts? Rainer
