I agree, TCP is sufficient. Otherwise you end up re-implementing it without advantage. Quoting Bennett Todd <betat_private>: > 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? > > -Bennett > -- Jason Royes Data Access Experts http://www.da-experts.com/ ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ _______________________________________________ LogAnalysis mailing list LogAnalysisat_private http://lists.shmoo.com/mailman/listinfo/loganalysis
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 07:29:35 PST