Re: NETCONF Notifications

[Chris Lonvick <clonvick@cisco.com>]

Hi,

On Mon, 30 May 2005, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:

> On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 10:40:35AM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote:
>
> > SYSLOG is out there.  Anyone can use it.  However, for reliable and
> > secure SYSLOG you have to do something different.  Particularly, for
> > reliable.  That's what 3195 was meant to cover.  If you want messages
> > signed individually then that's a different kettle of fish, but to
> > simply not have the messages go over the clear one can use the existing
> > BEEP profile just fine.
>
> <draft-ietf-syslog-protocol-11.txt> quite clearly states the following:
>
> :                                 This protocol utilizes a layered
> :   architecture, which allows the use of any number of transport
> :   protocols for transmission of syslog messages.
>
> So I believe syslog is moving to support other transports and not only
> BEEP for reliable delivery.

That statement is there to allow for udp and the future possibilities of
better transports.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-syslog-transport-udp-04.txt
"Transmission of syslog messages over UDP"  allows (more-r-less) backwards
compatibility with everything that currently does syslog/udp.  The WG (or
successors) could also allow other protocols in the future but RFC 3195 is
currently on the standards track for the syslog WG.  We made the decision
a very long time ago to separate the protcol from the transports for just
this reason.

Thanks,
Chris

--
to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>