Re: [logs] RE: syslog/tcp (selp)

From: Bennett Todd (betat_private)
Date: Wed Jan 15 2003 - 06:27:11 PST

  • Next message: Rainer Gerhards: "RE: [logs] RE: syslog/tcp (selp)"

    2003-01-15T04:38:01 Rainer Gerhards:
    > Honestly, I do not like to call it reliable as it is not fully
    > reliable.
    How so? TCP is reliable, no?
    > RFC3195 is.
    I'd expect RFC 3195 to be less reliable, until and unless we get a
    simple and robust implementation of the appropriate subset of BEEP;
    at least from what I've read on these lists, implementors looking
    for BEEP libs are not always pleased with their choices.
    > But SELP/SLP/RLP ;) is a simplex protocol, without any
    > acknowledgment from the receiver (except for the TCP
    > acknowledgment).
    That TCP ack seems to me to be all that's needed.
    > This has some inherent issues in it. Sure, it is much more
    > reliable than syslog/udp, but not bullet proof (maybe 90% to 95%,
    > which is not bad at all).
    Could you describe the scenario in which the current selp.txt
    proposal is unreliable?

    _______________________________________________ LogAnalysis mailing list LogAnalysisat_private

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 06:58:50 PST