Hi, Hopefully the next revision of 3195 can just refer to syslog-sign as the definitive way to do syslog messages. :-)
Thanks, Chris On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, Rainer Gerhards wrote: > Hi WG, > > event though I seem to be the one comitting the most typos, I think I > finally found one somewhere else. In 4.4.2 of 3195, it talks about relay > modes in [1], which refers to 3164. It says e.g. > > ### > However, for maximum compatibility, the device > SHOULD format the CDATA of the message in accordance with Sections > 4.2.1 through 4.2.3 of [1]. > ### > > This reference is repeated. > > The only thing is there is no 4.2.1 to 4.2.3 in 3164. I think it should > refer to 4.*1*.1 to 4.*1*.3. > > A bit later, it 3195 says: > #### > To be consistent with the spirit of [1], a relay receiving a message > that does not contain a valid priority, timestamp or hostname will > follow the same general rules as described in section 4.2.2 of [1] > while including the exact contents of the received syslog packet as > the CDATA. The values of the facility and severity will be construed > #### > Again, 4.2.2 does not exist in 3164, I assume this case 4.3 (as whole > that is 4.3.1 to 4.3.3) is meant. > > Then, it says: > #### > > As another example, consider a message being received that does not > properly adhere to the conventions described in Section 4.2.2 of [1]. > In particular, the timestamp has a year, making it a nonstandard > format: > #### > I assume, this means 4.1.2. > > I am pulling my RFCs from http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfcNNNN.txt which > should be the definite source. > > Something for the next revision? > > Rainer > > >
