[Technical Errata Reported] RFC5424 (5010)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[Technical Errata Reported] RFC5424 (5010)

rfc-editor
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5424,
"The Syslog Protocol".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5010

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Job Snijders <[hidden email]>

Section: 8.1

Original Text
-------------
This document guards against the technical issues outlined in UTR36 by
REQUIRING "shortest form" encoding for syslog applications.

Corrected Text
--------------
"Shortest Form" encoding is REQUIRED for syslog applications to guard
against the technical issues outlined in UTR36.

Notes
-----
"REQUIRING" is not a RFC 2119 keyword.

Instructions:
-------------
This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party  
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.

--------------------------------------
RFC5424 (draft-ietf-syslog-protocol-23)
--------------------------------------
Title               : The Syslog Protocol
Publication Date    : March 2009
Author(s)           : R. Gerhards
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Security Issues in Network Event Logging
Area                : Security
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG

_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5424 (5010)

t.petch-3
If this is a Technical Erratum, as it claims, then it is time to get out
the abacus!

Tom Petch


----- Original Message -----
From: "RFC Errata System" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2017 11:12 AM
Subject: [Syslog] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5424 (5010)


> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5424,
> "The Syslog Protocol".
>
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5010
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Job Snijders <[hidden email]>
>
> Section: 8.1
>
> Original Text
> -------------
> This document guards against the technical issues outlined in UTR36 by
> REQUIRING "shortest form" encoding for syslog applications.
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> "Shortest Form" encoding is REQUIRED for syslog applications to guard
> against the technical issues outlined in UTR36.
>
> Notes
> -----
> "REQUIRING" is not a RFC 2119 keyword.
>
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party
> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC5424 (draft-ietf-syslog-protocol-23)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : The Syslog Protocol
> Publication Date    : March 2009
> Author(s)           : R. Gerhards
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : Security Issues in Network Event Logging
> Area                : Security
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG
>
> _______________________________________________
> Syslog mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog

_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5424 (5010)

Job Snijders-2
On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 05:46:27PM +0100, t.petch wrote:
> If this is a Technical Erratum, as it claims, then it is time to get
> out the abacus!

I'm unsure what the purpose of your comment is. I just followed
directions to the best of my ability.

Please review https://www.rfc-editor.org/how-to-report/ it states:

    "Technical – error in the technical content (Note that changes in
    the usage of RFC 2119 keywords are considered technical.)"

Kind regards,

Job

_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
Loading...