RE: [logs] Syslog payload format

From: Ogle Ron (Rennes) (ron.ogleat_private)
Date: Tue Jan 14 2003 - 11:13:17 PST

  • Next message: Ogle Ron (Rennes): "RE: [logs] Syslog payload format"

    Just compare the successes of history on protocols:
    X.500 vs. LDAP
    X.400 vs. SMTP
    OSI vs. TCP/IP
    SGML vs. HTML
    CMIP vs. SNMP
    It's not trivializing a problem to understand that nice and easy tends to
    win over complete and complex.  All of the protocols that lost, were highly
    intellectual and covered all/most possible situations.  But they didn't win
    out, why?  They had too much baggage and were too complex to implement.
    You can spend your time and this list's time creating grandiose frameworks,
    but history is against you for actually getting it used.  Learn from history
    this time.
    Ron Ogle
    Rennes, France
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Marcus J. Ranum [mailto:mjrat_private]
    > Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 07:48 PM
    > To: Ogle Ron (Rennes); 'Frank O'Dwyer'; loganalysisat_private
    > Subject: RE: [logs] Syslog payload format
    > When you trivialize a problem by looking at a subset of it,
    > it's really easy to criticize broader approaches as too
    > complex. It's intellectually dishonest to do that, though,
    > and doesn't add much to the discussion.
    > mjr. 
    > ---
    > Marcus J. Ranum
    > Computer and Communications Security	mjrat_private
    LogAnalysis mailing list

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 14 2003 - 11:52:06 PST