RE: [logs] why log transport is still important

From: Christopher Lonvick (clonvickat_private)
Date: Fri Dec 13 2002 - 12:39:03 PST

  • Next message: Brian Anon: "[logs] Philosophical perspective on auditing" 

    Hi,

<some deleted for brevity>

On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Rainer Gerhards wrote:
>
> Any thoughts? Chris: an unofficial opionon on the potential of a simple
> TCP based syslog protocol? I am specifically asking because I remember
> the last time someone attempted to suggest the on the WG list - the
> responses were not very pleasant ;) And yes, I will post on this issue
> on the WG list soon - haven't had so much bad feedback these days, looks
> like it is getting time for some ;)


I'd like to have a discussion on the WG mailing list about this.  Since we
now have an implementation of 3195, I'd like to hear how it is, or isn't,
delivering what is wanted/needed.  If it's not, then we need to be clear
about what features are needed and why they're not attainable through
3195.  Similarly, what features are within 3195 that may not be needed for
syslog delivery.

Thanks,
Chris



_______________________________________________
LogAnalysis mailing list
LogAnalysisat_private
http://lists.shmoo.com/mailman/listinfo/loganalysis

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Dec 13 2002 - 13:19:44 PST