RE: [logs] Charset selection (Was: Re: EventLog library)

Previous message: Bennett Todd: "Re: [logs] Charset selection (Was: Re: EventLog library)"
Next in thread: Rainer Gerhards: "RE: [logs] Charset selection (Was: Re: EventLog library)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

rgerhardsat_private

Darren,

I see the point. But the more we move into that direction the more we
look like BEEP/RFC3195. I think that was also the bottom line on the
discussion on the IETF WG maling list: if you want to do it *really*
right, you end up with something similar like RFC3195.

My intention here is to have a very low-change, easy to do enhancement
to "classic" syslog. For the real stuff, go to RFC3195...

I might be totally off the track - but at least this is right now my
honest opinion...

Rainer

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Darren Reed [mailto:avalonat_private] 
> Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 2:35 AM
> To: Rainer Gerhards
> Cc: Mikael Olsson; loganalysisat_private
> Subject: Re: [logs] Charset selection (Was: Re: EventLog library)
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a compelling reason to keep traffic between log 
> daemons in "text strings" rather than wrap them up in 
> something else with byte counts and no CR-LF stuff and just 
> exchange typed data in a manner that allows you to be 
> ignorant of what character set is in use ?
> 
> Darren
> 
_______________________________________________
LogAnalysis mailing list
LogAnalysisat_private
http://lists.shmoo.com/mailman/listinfo/loganalysis