Re: syslog.conf format (Re: SoC: Improve syslogd)

[christos%astron.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)]

In article <4845E72D.7050301%mschuette.name@localhost>,
Martin Schütte  <lists%mschuette.name@localhost> wrote:
>Martin Schütte schrieb:
>>> You could always use
>>> *.* @@(mode=tls,whatever-else)server.example.net
>
>Now that I have my certificate validation working I am coming back to 
>the config format and see some problems.
>
>- the latest proposed text 
>(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/syslog/current/msg01920.html) 
>requires a per-destination configuration of a certificate subject or 
>fingerprint. To keep everything readable I suggest moving the hostname 
>to the left and the options field to the end of the line.
>For example I do not like this:
>@@(fingerprint="SHA1:E4:E1:A6:1C:D4:31:D7:D4:9B:B8:DC:DF:DD:CE:30:71:46:00:92:C9")server.example.net
>@@(subject="2001:db8::1428:57ab")server.example.net
>@@(subject="server.example.net")2001:db8::1428:57ab
>but would prefer this format:
>@@server.example.net(fingerprint="SHA1:E4:E1:A6:1C:D4:31:D7:D4:9B:B8:DC:DF:DD:CE:30:71:46:00:92:C9")
>@@server.example.net(subject="2001:db8::1428:57ab")
>@@2001:db8::1428:57ab(subject="server.example.net")

Yes, I think prepending the host is easier on the eyes.

>- And especially regarding rsyslog-compatibility: How do you configure 
>an IPv6 address with a portnumber? A simple ":" is not enough, because 
>it is not clear if the following is the port number or the last part of 
>the IPv6. So it might be necessary to introduce a new IP-delimiter like
>in @@[10.1.2.3]:514 and @@[2001:db8::1428:57ab]:514

Yes, there is prior art for this.

>For NetBSD this currently is not an issue, because it does not allow 
>different port numbers (it always uses the service port as set in 
>/etc/services).
>Question to our readers: Would you like the NetBSD syslogd to support 
>different ports?

Sure, I don't see why it should be limited.

christos