diff options
| author | Rainer Gerhards <rgerhards@adiscon.com> | 2005-12-23 12:46:29 +0000 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Rainer Gerhards <rgerhards@adiscon.com> | 2005-12-23 12:46:29 +0000 |
| commit | 271c0769b0375246014162b7a160118465c5bbfe (patch) | |
| tree | fca77b56c60f78d22c014d698261f56e62b6398a /doc | |
| parent | 69d0a13b86476fb476769a9901169af36b4b204b (diff) | |
| download | rsyslog-271c0769b0375246014162b7a160118465c5bbfe.tar.gz rsyslog-271c0769b0375246014162b7a160118465c5bbfe.tar.xz rsyslog-271c0769b0375246014162b7a160118465c5bbfe.zip | |
finalized field-support in property replacer (doc updated)
Diffstat (limited to 'doc')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/features.html | 83 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/property_replacer.html | 4 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/syslog-protocol.html | 352 |
3 files changed, 240 insertions, 199 deletions
diff --git a/doc/features.html b/doc/features.html index d5346025..58d6f0a2 100644 --- a/doc/features.html +++ b/doc/features.html @@ -1,42 +1,41 @@ -<html>
-<head>
-<title>rsyslog features</title>
-</head>
-<body>
-<h1>RSyslog - Features</h1>
-<p><b>This page lists both current features as well as those being considered
-for future versions of rsyslog.</b> If you think a feature is missing, drop
-<a href="mailto:rgerhards@adiscon.com">Rainer</a> a note. Rsyslog is a vital
-project. Features are added each few days. If you would like to keep up of what
-is going on, you can also subscribe to the <a href="http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog">rsyslog mailing list</a>.
-</p>
-<h2>Current Features</h2>
-<ul>
-
- <li>native support for <a href="rsyslog_mysql.html">writing to MySQL databases</a><li>support for (plain) tcp
- based syslog - much better reliability<li>support for receiving messages via
reliable <a href="http://www.monitorware.com/Common/en/glossary/rfc3195.php">
RFC 3195</a> delivery<li>control of log output format,
- including ability to present channel and priority as visible log data<li>good timestamp format control; at a minimum, ISO 8601/RFC 3339
- second-resolution UTC zone<li>ability to reformat message contents and work with substrings<li>support for
- log files larger than 2gb<li>support for file size limitation and automatic
- rollover command execution<li>support for running multiple rsyslogd
- instances on a single machine<li>support for <a href="rsyslog_stunnel.html">
- ssl-protected syslog</a> (via stunnel)<li>ability to filter on any part of
- the message, not just facility and severity<li>support for discarding
- messages based on filters<li>ability to execute shell scripts on received
- messages<li>control of whether the local hostname or the hostname of the
- origin of the data is shown as the hostname in the output<li>ability to
- preserve the original hostname in NAT environments and relay chains
- <li>ability to limit the allowed network senders<li>powerful BSD-style
hostname and program name blocks for easy multi-host support<li>
multi-threaded - currently experimental, does NOT work under BSD</ul>
-<p> </p>
-<h2>Upcoming Features</h2>
-<ul>
- <li>support for native SSL enryption of plain tcp syslog sessions
- <li>pcre filtering - maybe (depending on feedback) - simple regex already
- partly added
- <li>solid multi-threading<li>support for
<a href="http://www.monitorware.com/Common/en/glossary/rfc3195.php">RFC 3195</a>
as a sender - planned<li>support for
- <a href="http://www.syslog.cc/ietf/drafts/draft-ietf-syslog-protocol-15.txt">syslog-protocol-15</a>
compliant messages (will not happen any time soon (if at all), for reason
see
<a href="http://www.mail-archive.com/syslog@lists.ietf.org/msg00094.html">
here</a>)</ul>
-<p>To see when each feature was added, see the
-<a href="http://www.rsyslog.com/Topic4.phtml">rsyslog change log</a> (online
-only).</p>
-</body>
-</html>
+<html>
+<head>
+<title>rsyslog features</title>
+</head>
+<body>
+<h1>RSyslog - Features</h1>
+<p><b>This page lists both current features as well as those being considered
+for future versions of rsyslog.</b> If you think a feature is missing, drop
+<a href="mailto:rgerhards@adiscon.com">Rainer</a> a note. Rsyslog is a vital
+project. Features are added each few days. If you would like to keep up of what
+is going on, you can also subscribe to the <a href="http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog">rsyslog mailing list</a>.
+</p>
+<h2>Current Features</h2>
+<ul>
+
+ <li>native support for <a href="rsyslog_mysql.html">writing to MySQL databases</a><li>support for (plain) tcp
+ based syslog - much better reliability<li>support for receiving messages via
reliable <a href="http://www.monitorware.com/Common/en/glossary/rfc3195.php">
RFC 3195</a> delivery<li>control of log output format,
+ including ability to present channel and priority as visible log data<li>good timestamp format control; at a minimum, ISO 8601/RFC 3339
+ second-resolution UTC zone<li>ability to reformat message contents and work with substrings<li>support for
+ log files larger than 2gb<li>support for file size limitation and automatic
+ rollover command execution<li>support for running multiple rsyslogd
+ instances on a single machine<li>support for <a href="rsyslog_stunnel.html">
+ ssl-protected syslog</a> (via stunnel)<li>ability to filter on any part of
+ the message, not just facility and severity<li>support for discarding
+ messages based on filters<li>ability to execute shell scripts on received
+ messages<li>control of whether the local hostname or the hostname of the
+ origin of the data is shown as the hostname in the output<li>ability to
+ preserve the original hostname in NAT environments and relay chains
+ <li>ability to limit the allowed network senders<li>powerful BSD-style
hostname and program name blocks for easy multi-host support<li>
multi-threaded - currently experimental, does NOT work under BSD<li>very
experimental and volatile support for <a href="syslog-protocol.html">syslog-protocol</a>
compliant messages (it is volatile because standardization is currently
underway and this is a proof-of-concept implementation to aid this effort)</ul>
+<p> </p>
+<h2>Upcoming Features</h2>
+<ul>
+ <li>support for native SSL enryption of plain tcp syslog sessions
+ <li>pcre filtering - maybe (depending on feedback) - simple regex already
+ partly added
+ <li>solid multi-threading<li>support for
<a href="http://www.monitorware.com/Common/en/glossary/rfc3195.php">RFC 3195</a>
as a sender - planned</ul>
+<p>To see when each feature was added, see the
+<a href="http://www.rsyslog.com/Topic4.phtml">rsyslog change log</a> (online
+only).</p>
+</body>
+</html>
diff --git a/doc/property_replacer.html b/doc/property_replacer.html index f4c6bd64..10dba469 100644 --- a/doc/property_replacer.html +++ b/doc/property_replacer.html @@ -59,7 +59,9 @@ part of it. If you are using regular expressions, the property replacer will return the part of the property text that matches the regular expression. An
example for a property replacer sequence with a regular expression is: "%msg:R:.*Sev:.
\(.*\) \[.*--end%"<br>
-<br>
+<p>
+<b>Also, extraction can be done based on so-called "fields"</b>. To do so, place
a "F" into FromChar. A field in its current definition is anything that is
delemited by TAB characters (US-ASCII value 9). If your syslog data is tabular,
this is a quicker way to extract than via regular expressions (actually, a *much*
quicker way). Field counting starts at 1. Field zero is accepted, but will
always lead to a "field not found" error. The same happens if a field number
higher than the number of fields in the property is requested. The field number
must be placed in the "ToChar" parameter. An example where the 3rd field from
the msg property is extracted is as follows: "%msg:F:3%".<p>
+Please note that the special characters "F" and "R" are case-sensitive. Only
upper case works, lower case will return an error.<br>
<h2>Property Options</h2>
<b><code>property options</code></b> are case-insensitive. Currently, the following options
are defined:</p>
diff --git a/doc/syslog-protocol.html b/doc/syslog-protocol.html index e5789ab8..5305d812 100644 --- a/doc/syslog-protocol.html +++ b/doc/syslog-protocol.html @@ -1,156 +1,196 @@ -<html>
-<head>
-<title>syslog-protocol support in rsyslog</title>
-</head>
-<body>
-<h1>syslog-protocol support in rsyslog</h1>
-<p><b><a href="http://www.rsyslog.com/">Rsyslog</a> provides a trial
-implementation of the proposed
-<a href="http://www.monitorware.com/Common/en/glossary/syslog-protocol.php">
-syslog-protocol</a> standard.</b> The intention of this implementation is to
-find out what inside syslog-protocol is causing problems during implementation.
-As syslog-protocol is a standard under development, its support in rsyslog is
-highly volatile. It may change from release to release. So while it provides
-some advantages in the real world, users are cautioned against using it right
-now. If you do, be prepared that you will probably need to update all of your
-rsyslogds with each new release. If you try it anyhow, please provide feedback
-as that would be most benefitial for us.</p>
-<h2>Currently supported message format</h2>
-<p>Due to recent discussion on syslog-protocol, we do not follow any specific
-revision of the draft but rather the candidate ideas. The format supported
-currently is:</p>
-<p><b><code><PRI>VERSION SP TIMESTAMP SP HOSTNAME SP APP-NAME SP PROCID SP MSGID SP [SD-ID]s
-SP MSG</code></b></p>
-<p>Field syntax and semantics are as defined in IETF I-D syslog-protocol-15.</p>
-<h2>Capabilities Implemented</h2>
-<ul>
- <li>receiving message in the supported format (see above)</li>
- <li>sending messages in the supported format</li>
- <li>relaying messages</li>
- <li>receiving messages in either legacy or -protocol format and transforming
- them into the other one</li>
- <li>virtual availability of TAG, PROCID, APP-NAME, MSGID, SD-ID no matter if
- the message was received via legacy format, API or syslog-protocol format (non-present
- fields are being emulated with great success)</li>
- <li>maximum message size is set via preprocessor #define</li>
-</ul>
-<h2>Findings</h2>
-<p>This lists what has been found during implementation:</p>
-<ul>
- <li>The same receiver must be able to support both legacy and
- syslog-protocol syslog messages. Anything else would be a big inconvenience
- to users and would make deployment much harder. The detection must be done
- automatically (see below on how easy that is).</li>
- <li><b>NUL characters inside MSG</b> cause the message to be truncated at
- that point. This is probably a major point for many C-based implementations.
- No measures have yet been taken against this. Modifying the code to "cleanly"
- support NUL characters is non-trivial, even though rsyslogd already has some
- byte-counted string library (but this is new and not yet available
- everywhere).</li>
- <li><b>character encoding in MSG</b>: is is problematic to do the right
- UTF-8 encoding. The reason is that we pick up the MSG from the local domain
- socket (which got it from the syslog(3) API). The text obtained does not
- include any encoding information, but it does include non US-ASCII
- characters. It may also include any other encoding. Other than by guessing
- based on the provided text, I have no way to find out what it is. In order
- to make the syslogd do anything useful, I have now simply taken the message
- as is and stuffed it into the MSG part. Please note that I think this will
- be a route that other implementors would take, too.</li>
- <li>A minimal parser is easy to implement. It took me roughly 2 hours to add
- it to rsyslogd. This includes the time for restructering the code to be able
- to parse both legacy syslog as well as syslog-protocol. The parser has some
- restrictions, though<ul>
- <li>STRUCTURED-DATA field is extracted, but not validated. Structured data
- "[test ]]" is not caught as an error. Nor are any other errors caught. For
- my needs with this syslogd, that level of structued data processing is
- probably sufficient. I do not want to parse/validate it in all cases. This
- is also a performance issue. I think other implementors could have the same
- view. As such, we should not make validation a requirement.</li>
- <li>MSG is not further processed (e.g. Unicode not being validated)</li>
- <li>the other header fields are also extracted, but no validation is
- performed right now. At least some validation should be easy to add (not
- done this because it is a proof-of-concept and scheduled to change).</li>
-</ul>
- </li>
- <li>Universal access to all syslog fields (missing ones being emulated) was
- also quite easy. It took me around another 2 hours to integrate emulation of
- non-present fields into the code base.</li>
- <li>The version at the start of the message makes it easy to detect if we
- have legacy syslog or syslog-protocol. Do NOT move it to somewhere inside
- the middle of the message, that would complicate things. It might not be
- totally fail-safe to just rely on "1 " as the "cookie" for a syslog-protocol.
- Eventually, it would be good to add some more uniqueness, e.g. "@#1 ".</li>
- <li>I have no (easy) way to detect truncation if that happens on the UDP
- stack. All I see is that I receive e.g. a 4K message. If the message was e.g.
- 6K, I received two chunks. The first chunk (4K) is correctly detected as a
- syslog-protocol message, the second (2K) as legacy syslog. I do not see what
- we could do against this. This questions the usefulness of the TRUNCATE bit.
- Eventually, I could look at the UDP headers and see that it is a fragment. I
- have looked at a network sniffer log of the conversation. This looks like
- two totally-independant messages were sent by the sender stack.</li>
- <li>The maximum message size is currently being configured via a
- preprocessor #define. It can easily be set to 2K or 4K, but more than 4K is
- not possible because of UDP stack limitations. Eventually, this can be
- worked around, but I have not done this yet.</li>
- <li>rsyslogd can accept syslog-protocol formatted messages but is able to
- relay them in legacy format. I find this a must in real-life deployments.
- For this, I needed to do some field mapping so that APP-NAME/PROCID are
- mapped into a TAG.</li>
- <li>rsyslogd can also accept legacy syslog message and relay them in
- syslog-protocol format. For this, I needed to apply some sub-parsing of the
- TAG, which on most occasions provides correct results. There might be some
- misinterpretations but I consider these to be mostly non-intrusive. </li>
- <li>Messages received from the syslog API (the normal case under *nix) also
- do not have APP-NAME and PROCID and I must parse them out of TAG as
- described directly above. As such, this algorithm is absolutely vital to
- make things work on *nix.</li>
- <li>I have an issue with messages received via the syslog(3) API (or, to be
- more precise, via the local domain socket this API writes to): These
- messages contain a timestamp, but that timestamp does neither have the year
- nor the high-resolution time. The year is no real issue, I just take the
- year of the reception of that message. There is a very small window of
- exposure for messages read from the log immediately after midnight Jan 1st.
- The message in the domain socket might have been written immediately before
- midnight in the old year. I think this is acceptable. However, I can not
- assign a high-precision timestamp, at least it is somewhat off if I take the
- timestamp from message reception on the local socket. An alternative might
- be to ígnore the timestamp present and instead use that one when the message
- is pulled from the local socket (I am talking about IPC, not the network -
- just a reminder...). This is doable, but eventually not advisable. It looks
- like this needs to be resolved via a configuration option.</li>
- <li>rsyslogd already advertised its origin information on application
- startup (in a syslog-protocol-14 compatible format). It is fairly easy to
- include that with any message if desired (not currently done).</li>
- <li>A big problem I noticed are malformed messages. In -syslog-protocol, we
- recommend/require to discard malformed messages. However, in practice users
- would like to see everything that the syslogd receives, even if it is in
- error. For the first version, I have not included any error handling at all.
- However, I think I would deliberately ignore any "discard" requirement. My
- current point of view is that in my code I would eventually flag a message
- as being invalid and allow the user to filter on this invalidness. So these
- invalid messages could be redirected into special bins.</li>
- <li>The error logging recommendations (those I insisted on;)) are not really
- practical. My application has its own error logging philosophy and I will
- not change this to follow a draft.</li>
-</ul>
-<p> </p>
-<h2>Conlusions/Suggestions</h2>
-<p>These are my personal conclusions and suggestions. Obviously, they must be
-discussed ;)</p>
-<ul>
- <li>NUL should be disallowd in MSG</li>
- <li>As it is not possible to definitely know the character encoding of the
- application-provided message, MSG should <b>not</b> be specified to use UTF-8
- exclusively. Instead, it is suggested that any encoding may be used but
- UTF-8 is preferred. To detect UTF-8, the MSG should start with the UTF-8
- byte order mask of "EF BB BF" if it is UTF-8 encoded (see section 155.9 of
- <a href="http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode4.0.0/ch15.pdf">
- http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode4.0.0/ch15.pdf</a>) </li>
- <li>Requirements to drop messages should be reconsidered. I guess I would
- not be the only implementor ignoring them.</li>
- <li>Logging requirements should be reconsidered and probably be removed.</li>
-</ul>
-<p> </p>
-</body>
-</html>
-
+<html> +<head> +<title>syslog-protocol support in rsyslog</title> +</head> +<body> +<h1>syslog-protocol support in rsyslog</h1> +<p><b><a href="http://www.rsyslog.com/">Rsyslog</a> provides a trial +implementation of the proposed +<a href="http://www.monitorware.com/Common/en/glossary/syslog-protocol.php"> +syslog-protocol</a> standard.</b> The intention of this implementation is to +find out what inside syslog-protocol is causing problems during implementation. +As syslog-protocol is a standard under development, its support in rsyslog is +highly volatile. It may change from release to release. So while it provides +some advantages in the real world, users are cautioned against using it right +now. If you do, be prepared that you will probably need to update all of your +rsyslogds with each new release. If you try it anyhow, please provide feedback +as that would be most benefitial for us.</p> +<h2>Currently supported message format</h2> +<p>Due to recent discussion on syslog-protocol, we do not follow any specific +revision of the draft but rather the candidate ideas. The format supported +currently is:</p> +<p><b><code><PRI>VERSION SP TIMESTAMP SP HOSTNAME SP APP-NAME SP PROCID SP MSGID SP [SD-ID]s +SP MSG</code></b></p> +<p>Field syntax and semantics are as defined in IETF I-D syslog-protocol-15.</p> +<h2>Capabilities Implemented</h2> +<ul> + <li>receiving message in the supported format (see above)</li> + <li>sending messages in the supported format</li> + <li>relaying messages</li> + <li>receiving messages in either legacy or -protocol format and transforming + them into the other one</li> + <li>virtual availability of TAG, PROCID, APP-NAME, MSGID, SD-ID no matter if + the message was received via legacy format, API or syslog-protocol format (non-present + fields are being emulated with great success)</li> + <li>maximum message size is set via preprocessor #define</li> + <li>syslog-protocol messages can be transmitted both over UDP and plain TCP + with some restrictions on compliance in the case of TCP</li> +</ul> +<h2>Findings</h2> +<p>This lists what has been found during implementation:</p> +<ul> + <li>The same receiver must be able to support both legacy and + syslog-protocol syslog messages. Anything else would be a big inconvenience + to users and would make deployment much harder. The detection must be done + automatically (see below on how easy that is).</li> + <li><b>NUL characters inside MSG</b> cause the message to be truncated at + that point. This is probably a major point for many C-based implementations. + No measures have yet been taken against this. Modifying the code to "cleanly" + support NUL characters is non-trivial, even though rsyslogd already has some + byte-counted string library (but this is new and not yet available + everywhere).</li> + <li><b>character encoding in MSG</b>: is is problematic to do the right + UTF-8 encoding. The reason is that we pick up the MSG from the local domain + socket (which got it from the syslog(3) API). The text obtained does not + include any encoding information, but it does include non US-ASCII + characters. It may also include any other encoding. Other than by guessing + based on the provided text, I have no way to find out what it is. In order + to make the syslogd do anything useful, I have now simply taken the message + as is and stuffed it into the MSG part. Please note that I think this will + be a route that other implementors would take, too.</li> + <li>A minimal parser is easy to implement. It took me roughly 2 hours to add + it to rsyslogd. This includes the time for restructering the code to be able + to parse both legacy syslog as well as syslog-protocol. The parser has some + restrictions, though<ul> + <li>STRUCTURED-DATA field is extracted, but not validated. Structured data + "[test ]]" is not caught as an error. Nor are any other errors caught. For + my needs with this syslogd, that level of structued data processing is + probably sufficient. I do not want to parse/validate it in all cases. This + is also a performance issue. I think other implementors could have the same + view. As such, we should not make validation a requirement.</li> + <li>MSG is not further processed (e.g. Unicode not being validated)</li> + <li>the other header fields are also extracted, but no validation is + performed right now. At least some validation should be easy to add (not + done this because it is a proof-of-concept and scheduled to change).</li> +</ul> + </li> + <li>Universal access to all syslog fields (missing ones being emulated) was + also quite easy. It took me around another 2 hours to integrate emulation of + non-present fields into the code base.</li> + <li>The version at the start of the message makes it easy to detect if we + have legacy syslog or syslog-protocol. Do NOT move it to somewhere inside + the middle of the message, that would complicate things. It might not be + totally fail-safe to just rely on "1 " as the "cookie" for a syslog-protocol. + Eventually, it would be good to add some more uniqueness, e.g. "@#1 ".</li> + <li>I have no (easy) way to detect truncation if that happens on the UDP + stack. All I see is that I receive e.g. a 4K message. If the message was e.g. + 6K, I received two chunks. The first chunk (4K) is correctly detected as a + syslog-protocol message, the second (2K) as legacy syslog. I do not see what + we could do against this. This questions the usefulness of the TRUNCATE bit. + Eventually, I could look at the UDP headers and see that it is a fragment. I + have looked at a network sniffer log of the conversation. This looks like + two totally-independant messages were sent by the sender stack.</li> + <li>The maximum message size is currently being configured via a + preprocessor #define. It can easily be set to 2K or 4K, but more than 4K is + not possible because of UDP stack limitations. Eventually, this can be + worked around, but I have not done this yet.</li> + <li>rsyslogd can accept syslog-protocol formatted messages but is able to + relay them in legacy format. I find this a must in real-life deployments. + For this, I needed to do some field mapping so that APP-NAME/PROCID are + mapped into a TAG.</li> + <li>rsyslogd can also accept legacy syslog message and relay them in + syslog-protocol format. For this, I needed to apply some sub-parsing of the + TAG, which on most occasions provides correct results. There might be some + misinterpretations but I consider these to be mostly non-intrusive. </li> + <li>Messages received from the syslog API (the normal case under *nix) also + do not have APP-NAME and PROCID and I must parse them out of TAG as + described directly above. As such, this algorithm is absolutely vital to + make things work on *nix.</li> + <li>I have an issue with messages received via the syslog(3) API (or, to be + more precise, via the local domain socket this API writes to): These + messages contain a timestamp, but that timestamp does neither have the year + nor the high-resolution time. The year is no real issue, I just take the + year of the reception of that message. There is a very small window of + exposure for messages read from the log immediately after midnight Jan 1st. + The message in the domain socket might have been written immediately before + midnight in the old year. I think this is acceptable. However, I can not + assign a high-precision timestamp, at least it is somewhat off if I take the + timestamp from message reception on the local socket. An alternative might + be to ígnore the timestamp present and instead use that one when the message + is pulled from the local socket (I am talking about IPC, not the network - + just a reminder...). This is doable, but eventually not advisable. It looks + like this needs to be resolved via a configuration option.</li> + <li>rsyslogd already advertised its origin information on application + startup (in a syslog-protocol-14 compatible format). It is fairly easy to + include that with any message if desired (not currently done).</li> + <li>A big problem I noticed are malformed messages. In -syslog-protocol, we + recommend/require to discard malformed messages. However, in practice users + would like to see everything that the syslogd receives, even if it is in + error. For the first version, I have not included any error handling at all. + However, I think I would deliberately ignore any "discard" requirement. My + current point of view is that in my code I would eventually flag a message + as being invalid and allow the user to filter on this invalidness. So these + invalid messages could be redirected into special bins.</li> + <li>The error logging recommendations (those I insisted on;)) are not really + practical. My application has its own error logging philosophy and I will + not change this to follow a draft.</li> + <li>Relevance of support for leap seconds and senders without knowledge of + time is questionable. I have not made any specific provisions in the code + nor would I know how to handle that differently. I could, however, pull the + local reception timestamp in this case, so it might be useful to have this + feature. I do not think any more about this for the initial proof-of-concept. + Note it as a potential problem area, especially when logging to databases.</li> + <li>The HOSTNAME field for internally generated messages currently contains + the hostname part only, not the FQDN. This can be changed inside the code + base, but it requires some thinking so that thinks are kept compatible with + legacy syslog. I have not done this for the proof-of-concept, but I think it + is not really bad. Maybe an hour or half a day of thinking.</li> + <li>It is possible that I did not receive a TAG with legacy syslog or via + the syslog API. In this case, I can not generate the APP-NAME. For + consistency, I have used "-" in such cases (just like in PROCID, MSGID and + STRUCTURED-DATA).</li> + <li>As an architectural side-effect, syslog-protocol formatted messages can + also be transmitted over non-standard syslog/raw tcp. This implementation + uses the industry-standard LF termination of tcp syslog records. As such, + syslog-protocol messages containing a LF will be broken invalidly. There is + nothing that can be done against this without specifying a TCP transport. + This issue might be more important than one thinks on first thought. The + reason is the wide deployment of syslog/tcp via industry standard.</li> +</ul> +<p><b>Some notes on syslog-transport-udp-06</b></p> +<ul> + <li>I did not make any low-level modifications to the UDP code and think I + am still basically covered with this I-D.</li> + <li>I deliberately violate section 3.3 insofar as that I do not necessarily + accept messages destined to port 514. This feature is user-required and a + must. The same applies to the destination port. I am not sure if the "MUST" + in section 3.3 was meant that this MUST be an option, but not necessarily be + active. The wording should be clarified.</li> + <li>section 3.6: I do not check checksums. See the issue with discarding + messages above. The same solution will probably be applied in my code.</li> +</ul> +<p> </p> +<h2>Conlusions/Suggestions</h2> +<p>These are my personal conclusions and suggestions. Obviously, they must be +discussed ;)</p> +<ul> + <li>NUL should be disallowd in MSG</li> + <li>As it is not possible to definitely know the character encoding of the + application-provided message, MSG should <b>not</b> be specified to use UTF-8 + exclusively. Instead, it is suggested that any encoding may be used but + UTF-8 is preferred. To detect UTF-8, the MSG should start with the UTF-8 + byte order mask of "EF BB BF" if it is UTF-8 encoded (see section 155.9 of + <a href="http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode4.0.0/ch15.pdf"> + http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode4.0.0/ch15.pdf</a>) </li> + <li>Requirements to drop messages should be reconsidered. I guess I would + not be the only implementor ignoring them.</li> + <li>Logging requirements should be reconsidered and probably be removed.</li> + <li>It would be advisable to specify "-" for APP-NAME is the name is not + known to the sender.</li> + <li>The implications of the current syslog/tcp industry standard on + syslog-protocol should be further evaluated and be fully understood</li> +</ul> +<p> </p> +</body> +</html> + |