Hi David, On Wed, 4 Feb 2004, Harrington, David wrote:
> Hi > > Comments inline. > > > My position is that -protocol should NOT contain any transport mapping > > and that there should be a short RFC outlining how -protocol is to be > > mapped on UDP transport. > > I think it is important to have at least one transport mapping to ensure > interoperability. > > > > > > I'm a bit doubtful about doing that > > > as it would > > > allow people to do syslog-protocol/tcp, or > > > syslog-protocol/sctp, etc. > > SNMP has had one required transport mapping, and permitted additional > mappings. In fifteen years of use, no attempt to add transport protocols > has gathered enough industry interest to really succeed, and SNMP is a > protocol with many known problems directly caused by the UDP transport > limitations. I suspect your fears will not be realized. > > > If we do this, > > I'll probably > > > insist that syslog-protocol/udp be a REQUIRED implementation > > > and others > > > are OPTIONAL. > > I think having one required is the right way to go, Would you recommend that to be in the syslog-protocol document, or a separate document? > and I think it would > be useful to have the WG define at least one alternate protocol mapping, > which addresses the major shortcomings of the required transport, to > help ensure that we don't end up with a bunch of proprietary > implementations for the same alternate transport. I believe that's RFC 3195. :-) Any major changes coming from syslog-protocol (such as the improved TIMESTAMP) will go into an update of that RFC when we're ready. Thanks, Chris > > > > > I think this is an very important comment in regard to the overall > > design. I think it is of advantage to facilitate the creation of other > > transport mappings, as for example is currently being > > discussed for SNMP > > inform messages. > > Where is this discussion taking place? In the syslog WG or in the SNMP > community? As an active member of the SNMP community, I don't think I'm > aware of this discussion. I am aware of discussions about adding TCP > transport for all types of SNMP messages, not just informs, but that > effort is dying the slow death of apathy. > > > I agree that it makes it easy to "abuse" -protocol to > > create non-standard transport mappings. > > See my comment about the slow death of apathy. I think people may be way > too worried about a proliferation of transport mappings. New transport > mappings will only be supported if there is a solid economic benefit > involved. Again, the SNMP community has permitted alternate transport > mappings for years, but few if any vendors have actually supported them > in their equipment. > > > this is current state of the art, there ARE many syslog/raw tcp > > implementations in the wild. > > I recommend that we work to standardize these additional mappings if > they already exist in the wild and have proven truly useful. I recommend > checking to see how many operators actually enable and USE those > syslog/raw tcp implementations. > > dbh > > >
