Network Working Group D. New Internet-Draft M.T. Rose Expires: April 17, 2001 Invisible Worlds, Inc. October 17, 2000 Reliable Delivery for Syslog draft-ietf-syslog-reliable-00 Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 17, 2001. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved. Abstract The SYSLOG protocol[1] describes a number of service options related to propagating event messages. This memo describes two mappings of the syslog protocol to TCP connections, both useful for reliable delivery of event messages. The first provides a trivial mapping maximizing backward compatibility. The second provides a more complete mapping. Both provide a degree of robustness and security in message delivery that is unavailable to the usual UDP-based syslog protocol, by providing encryption and authentication over the TCP connection. New & Rose Expires April 17, 2001 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for Syslog October 2000 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. The Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. The RAW Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1 RAW Profile Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2 RAW Profile Identification and Initialization . . . . . . . 8 3.3 RAW Profile Message Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.4 RAW Profile Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. The COOKED Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1 COOKED Profile Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.2 COOKED Profile Identification and Initialization . . . . . . 9 4.3 COOKED Profile Message Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.4 COOKED Profile Message Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.4.1 The IAM Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.4.2 The ENTRY Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5. Additional Provisioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.1 Message Authenticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.2 Message Replay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.3 Message Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.4 Message Observation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.5 Summary of Recommended Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6. Initial Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6.1 Registration: The RAW Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6.2 Registration: The COOKED Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7. The Syslog DTD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8. Reply Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 New & Rose Expires April 17, 2001 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for Syslog October 2000 1. Introduction The syslog protocol[1] presents a spectrum of service options for provisioning an event-based logging service over a network. Each option has associated benefits and costs. Accordingly, the choice as to what combination of options is provisioned is both an engineering and administrative decision. This memo describes how to realize the syslog protocol when reliable delivery is selected as a required service. It is beyond the scope of this memo to argue for, or against, the use of reliable delivery for the syslog protocol. New & Rose Expires April 17, 2001 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for Syslog October 2000 2. The Model The syslog service supports three roles of operation: device, relay, and collector. Devices and collectors act as sources and sinks, respectively, of syslog entries. In the simplest case, only a device and collector are present. E.g., +--------+ +-----------+ | Device | -----> | Collector | +--------+ +-----------+ The relationship between devices and collectors is potentially many-to-many. I.e., a device might communicate with many collectors; similarly, a collector might communicate with many devices. A relay operates in both modes, accepting syslog entries from devices and other relays and forwarding those entries to collectors and other relays. For example, +--------+ +-------+ +-----------+ | Device | -----> | Relay | -----> | Collector | +--------+ +-------+ +-----------+ Of course, more than one relay may be present between any particular device and collector. To provide reliable delivery when realizing the syslog protocol, this memo defines two BEEP profiles. BEEP[2] is a generic application protocol framework for connection-oriented, asynchronous interactions. Within BEEP, features such as authentication, privacy, and reliability through retransmission are provided. There are two profiles defined in this memo: o The RAW profile is designed to provide a high-performance, low-impact footprint, using essentially the same format as the existing UDP-based syslog service. o The COOKED profile is designed to provide a structured entry format, in which individual entries are acknowledged (either positively or negatively). New & Rose Expires April 17, 2001 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for Syslog October 2000 The choice of profile is independent of the operational roles discussed above. For example, in +--------+ +-------+ +-----------+ | Device | -----> | Relay | -----> | Collector | +--------+ +-------+ +-----------+ the device-to-relay link could be configured to use the RAW profile, while the relay-to-collector link could be configured to use the COOKED profile. (For example, the relay may be parsing the RAW syslog messages from the device, knowing the details of their formats, before passing them to a more generic collector.) Indeed, the same device may use different profiles, depending on the collector to which it is sending entries. Devices and relays SHOULD discover relays and collectors via the DNS SRV algorithm[6]. The service used is "syslog" and the protocol used is "tcp". New & Rose Expires April 17, 2001 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for Syslog October 2000 3. The RAW Profile 3.1 RAW Profile Overview The RAW profile is designed for minimal implementation effort, high efficiency, and backwards compatibility. It is appropriate especially in cases where legacy syslog processing will be applied. When the profile is started, no piggyback data is supplied. All BEEP messages in the RAW profile are specified as having a MIME Content-Type[5] of application/octet-stream. Once the channel is open, the listener (not the initiator) sends a MSG message indicating it is ready to act as a syslog sink. (Refer to [2]'s Section 2.1 for a discussion of roles that a BEEP peer may perform, including definitions of the terms "listener," "initiator," "client," and "server.") The initiator uses ANS frames to supply syslog entries in the current UDP format, as specified in [1]'s Section 3. When the initiator has no more entries to send, it finishes with a NUL message and closes the channel. An example might appear as follows: L: I: L: RPY 0 0 . 0 165 L: L: L: L: L: L: END I: RPY 0 0 . 0 16 I: I: I: END I: MSG 0 1 . 16 121 I: Content-type: text/xml I: I: I: I: I: END L: RPY 0 1 . 165 88 L: Content-type: text/xml L: L: New & Rose Expires April 17, 2001 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for Syslog October 2000 L: END L: MSG 1 0 . 0 50 L: L: Central Services. This has not been a recording. L: END I: ANS 1 0 . 0 61 0 I: I: <29>Oct 27 13:21:08 ductwork imxpd[141]: Heating emergency.END I: ANS 1 0 . 61 58 1 I: I: <29>Oct 27 13:22:15 ductwork imxpd[141]: Contact Tuttle.END I: NUL 1 0 . 119 0 I: END L: MSG 0 3 . 253 58 L: Content-Type: text/xml L: L: L: END I: RPY 0 3 . 137 34 I: Content-Type: text/xml I: I: I: END I: MSG 0 4 . 171 59 I: Content-Type: text/xml I: I: I: END L: RPY 0 4 . 311 34 L: Content-type: text/xml L: L: L: END L: I: L: Here we see a BEEP session established, followed by the use of the RAW profile. The initiator is a device, while the listener is a collector. The initiator opens the channel, but the listener sends the first MSG. This allows the initiator to send any number of ANS frames carrying syslog event messages. The initiator sends a NUL frame to indicate it is finished. Upon receiving the NUL, the listener closes the RAW channel. The initiator has the choice of closing the entire BEEP session or opening a new syslog channel (RAW or COOKED) for more transfers. In this example, the initiator chooses to close the entire BEEP session. New & Rose Expires April 17, 2001 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for Syslog October 2000 3.2 RAW Profile Identification and Initialization The RAW syslog profile is identified as http://xml.resource.org/profiles/syslog/RAW in the BEEP "profile" element during channel creation. No data is piggybacked during channel creation. 3.3 RAW Profile Message Syntax All BEEP messages in this profile have a MIME content-type of application/octet-stream. The listener's first BEEP message is ignored and indeed may be empty except for headers; hence, any syntax is acceptable. The ANS messages the initiator sends in response MUST be formatted according to Section 3 of [1]. In particular, the syslog event message MUST be transmitted as ASCII alphanumerics and symbols, only using codes 32 through 126. The syslog message message starts with a leading "<" ('less-than' character), followed by a number, which is followed by a ">" ('greater-than' character). This is optionally followed by a single ASCII space. The remainder of the syslog message follows this. There is no ending delimiter, but the syslog event message body length MUST be 1024 bytes or less, excluding BEEP framing overhead. Note that there MUST NOT be a CRLF between the text of the event message and the "END" marking the trailer of the BEEP frame. 3.4 RAW Profile Semantics The listener's opening BEEP message has no semantics. (It is a good place to put in an identifying greeting.) The initiator's ANS messages MUST specify a facility, severity, and textual message, as described in [1]. New & Rose Expires April 17, 2001 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for Syslog October 2000 4. The COOKED Profile 4.1 COOKED Profile Overview The COOKED profile is designed for new implementations of syslog protocol handlers. It provides a much finer grain of information, allowing a better degree of automation in processing. Naturally, it includes more overhead as well in support of this. The COOKED profile supports two elements of interest: o The "iam" element identifies the sender to the receiver, allowing each peer to name itself for the other, and specifying the roles (device, relay, or collector) each is taking on. o The "entry" element provides a parsed version of the syslog entry, with the various fields of interest broken out. 4.2 COOKED Profile Identification and Initialization The COOKED syslog profile is identified as http://xml.resource.org/profiles/syslog/COOKED in the BEEP "profile" element during channel creation. During channel creation, the corresponding "profile" element in the BEEP "start" element may contain an "iam" element. If channel creation is successful, then before sending the corresponding reply, the BEEP peer processes the "iam" element and includes the resulting response in the reply. This response will be an "ok" element, an "error" element, or an "iam" element. The choice of which element is returned is dependant on local provisioning of the recipient. Including an "iam" in the initial "start" element has exactly the same semantics as passing it as the first MSG message on the channel. 4.3 COOKED Profile Message Syntax All BEEP messages in this profile have a MIME Content-Type[5] of text/xml. The syntax of the individual elements is specified in Section 7. 4.4 COOKED Profile Message Semantics Initiators issue two elements: "iam" and "entry", each using a "MSG". The listener issues "iam" and "ok" in "RPY" frames and "error" in an "ERR" frame. (See [2]'s Section 2.3.1 for the definitions of the "error" and "ok" elements.) New & Rose Expires April 17, 2001 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for Syslog October 2000 4.4.1 The IAM Element The "iam" element serves to identify a device, relay, or collector at one end of the BEEP channel to the device, relay, or collector at the other end of the channel. The "iam" element includes the type of peer (device, relay, or collector), the fully qualified domain name of the peer, and the IP address of the peer. An "iam" element may be sent by the initiator of the channel at any time. The listener responds to an "iam" element with its own "iam", an "ok" (indicating acceptance and no future "iam" forthcoming), or an "error" (indicating rejection). The identity and role in effect is specified by the most recent "iam" not answered with an "error". An "iam" could be rejected (with an "error" element) by the listener if the privacy or authentication that has been negotiated is inadequate, if the authenticated user does not have authorization to serve in the specified role, or if any of the attributes of the element do not match the session's properties (e.g., the IP address claimed in the "iam" element does not match the source address of the TCP connection). For example, a successful creation might look like this: I: MSG 0 10 . 1832 247 I: Content-type: text/xml I: I: I: I: ]]> I: I: L: END L: RPY 0 10 . 704 190 L: Content-type: text/xml L: L: L: ]]> L: L: END New & Rose Expires April 17, 2001 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for Syslog October 2000 An creation with an embedded "iam" that fails might look like this: C: MSG 0 12 . 1832 247 C: Content-type: text/xml C: C: C: C: ]]> C: C: C: END S: RPY 0 12 . 704 229 S: Content-type: text/xml S: S: S: User 'buttle.example.com' not allowed S: to "iam" for 'tuttle.example.com' ]]> S: S: END 4.4.2 The ENTRY Element The "entry" element carries the details of a single syslog entry. The attributes of an "entry" element include "facility", "severity", "timestamp", "processName", and "processID". "Facility" and "severity" have the semantics defined in [1]'s 3.1. The other attributes have the semantics as in Section 4 of [1]. The timestamp is always in UTC. If the client is a relay, the "entry" SHOULD also contain the attributes "deviceFQDN" and "deviceIP", specifying the FQDN and IP address of the device that originally created the entry. The character data for the element is the unstructured syslog event message being logged. In this case, "processName" and "processID" SHOULD be those of the original device generating the entry (unless the device cannot supply a processName and processID). The "timestamp" SHOULD be that of the original entry generation time, rather than the time the entry was passed outward from the relay. The "entry" element may also contain an "xml:lang" attribute, indicating the language in which the CDATA content of the tag is presented, a la [4]. New & Rose Expires April 17, 2001 [Page 11] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for Syslog October 2000 The "entry" element is answered with either an empty "ok" element if everything was successful, or a standard "error" element if there was a problem. An "entry" element can be rejected if no "iam" element has been accepted by the listener. It can also be rejected if the user authenticated on the BEEP session (if any) does not have the authority to generate (as a device) or relay that entry. A successful exchange of an "entry" element may look like this: C: MSG 1 0 . 2058 160 C: Content-Type: text/xml C: C: C: No 27B/6 available C: END S: RPY 1 0 . 933 33 S: Content-Type: text/xml S: S: S: END Here, the device IP address and FQDN are taken from the "iam" element, if any, or from the TCP connection information. An example where an "entry" element is reject with an "error" element: C: MSG 1 2 . 2212 236 C: Content-Type: text/xml C: C: C: Replacement device found in nostril. C: C: END S: ERR 1 2 . 966 101 S: Content-Type: text/xml S: S: Not allowed to relay for S: jack.invisible.net S: END Here, the client attempts to relay an entry on behalf of jack.example.com, but the entry is refused by the collector for administrative reasons. This may occur, for example, if lowry.example.com is in a different department than jack.example.com. New & Rose Expires April 17, 2001 [Page 12] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for Syslog October 2000 5. Additional Provisioning In more advanced configurations, syslog devices, relays, and collectors can be configured to support various delivery priorities. Multiple channels running the same profile can be opened between two peers, with higher priority syslog messages routed to a channel that is given more bandwidth. Such provisioning is a local matter. Syslog[1] discusses a number of reasons why privacy and authentication of syslog entry messages may be important in a networked computing environment. The nature of BEEP allows for convenient layering of authentication and privacy over any BEEP channel. 5.1 Message Authenticity Section 5.2 of [1] discusses the dangers of unauthenticated syslog entries. To prevent inauthentic syslog event messages from being accepted, configure syslog peers to require the use of a strong authentication technology for the BEEP session. If provisioned for message authentication, implementations SHOULD use SASL mechanism DIGEST-MD5[7] to provision this service. 5.2 Message Replay Section 5.3.4 of [1] discusses the dangers of syslog message replay. To prevent syslog event messages from being replayed, configure syslog peers to require the use of a strong authentication technology for the BEEP session. If provisioned to detect message replay, implementations SHOULD use SASL mechanism DIGEST-MD5[7] to provision this service. 5.3 Message Integrity Section 5.5 of [1] discusses the dangers of syslog event messages being maliciously altered by an attacker. To prevent messages from being altered, configure syslog peers to require the use of a strong authentication technology for the BEEP session. If provisioned to protect message integrity, implementations SHOULD use SASL mechanism DIGEST-MD5[7] to provision this service. New & Rose Expires April 17, 2001 [Page 13] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for Syslog October 2000 5.4 Message Observation Section 5.6 of [1] discusses the dangers (and benefits) of syslog messages being visible at intermediate points along the transmission path between device and collector. To prevent messages from being viewed by an attacker, configure syslog peers to require the use of a transport security profile for the BEEP session. (However, other traffic characteristics, e.g., volume and timing of transmissions, remain observable.) If provisioned to secure messages against unauthorized observation, implementations SHOULD use the TLS profile[2] to provision this service. The cipher algorithm used SHOULD be TLS_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA. 5.5 Summary of Recommended Practices For the indicated protections, implementations SHOULD be configured to use the indicated mechanisms: Desired Protection Auth Replay Integrity Observation SHOULD tune using ---- ------ --------- ----------- ----------------- xx .../sasl/DIGEST-MD5 xx xx .../sasl/DIGEST-MD5 xx xx xx .../sasl/DIGEST-MD5 xx xx xx xx .../TLS BEEP peer identities used for authentication SHOULD correspond to the FQDN of the initiating peer. That is, a relay running on relay.example.com should use a "user ID" of "relay.example.com" within the SASL authentication profiles, as well as in the FQDN of the "iam" element. New & Rose Expires April 17, 2001 [Page 14] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for Syslog October 2000 6. Initial Registrations 6.1 Registration: The RAW Profile Profile Identification: http://xml.resource.org/profiles/syslog/RAW Messages exchanged during Channel Creation: None Messages starting one-to-one exchanges: Anything Messages in positive replies: None Messages in negative replies: None Messages in one-to-many exchanges: Anything Message Syntax: c.f., Section 3.3 Message Semantics: c.f., Section 3.4 Contact Information: c.f., the "Authors' Addresses" section of this memo 6.2 Registration: The COOKED Profile Profile Identification: http://xml.resource.org/profiles/syslog/RAW Messages exchanged during Channel Creation: iam, ok, error Messages starting one-to-one exchanges: iam, entry Messages in positive replies: iam, ok Messages in negative replies: error Messages in one-to-many exchanges: None Message Syntax: c.f., Section 4.3 Message Semantics: c.f., Section 4.4 Contact Information: c.f., the "Authors' Addresses" section of this memo New & Rose Expires April 17, 2001 [Page 15] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for Syslog October 2000 7. The Syslog DTD The following is the DTD defining the valid elements for the syslog over BEEP mapping. %BEEP; New & Rose Expires April 17, 2001 [Page 16] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for Syslog October 2000 New & Rose Expires April 17, 2001 [Page 17] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for Syslog October 2000 New & Rose Expires April 17, 2001 [Page 18] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for Syslog October 2000 8. Reply Codes The following error codes are used in the protocol: code meaning ==== ======= 421 service not available 451 requested action aborted (e.g., local error in processing) 454 temporary authentication failure 500 general syntax error (e.g., poorly-formed XML) 501 syntax error in parameters (e.g., non-valid XML) 504 parameter not implemented 530 authentication required 534 authentication mechanism insufficient (e.g., too weak, sequence exhausted, etc.) 535 authentication failure 537 action not authorized for user 538 authentication mechanism requires encryption 550 requested action not taken (e.g., no requested profiles are acceptable) 553 parameter invalid 554 transaction failed (e.g., policy violation) New & Rose Expires April 17, 2001 [Page 19] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for Syslog October 2000 9. Security Considerations Consult Section 5 of [1] for a discussion of security issues for the syslog service. In addition, since the RAW and COOKED profiles are defined using the BEEP framework, consult [2]'s Section 8 for a discussion of BEEP-specific security issues. New & Rose Expires April 17, 2001 [Page 20] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for Syslog October 2000 References [1] Lonvick, C., "syslog Protocol", draft-ietf-syslog-syslog-01 (work in progress), October 2000. [2] Rose, M.T., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Framework", draft-ietf-beep-framework-04 (work in progress), October 2000. [3] Mockapetris, P.V., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", RFC 1034, STD 13, Nov 1987. [4] Alvestrand, H., "Tags for the Identification of Languages", RFC 1766, March 1995. [5] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046, November 1996. [6] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P. and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782, February 2000. [7] Leach, P. and C. Newman, "Using Digest Authentication as a SASL Mechanism", RFC 2831, May 2000. [8] mailto:kzm@cisco.com Authors' Addresses Darren New Invisible Worlds, Inc. 1179 North McDowell Boulevard Petaluma, CA 94954-6559 US Phone: +1 707 789 3700 EMail: dnew@invisible.net URI: http://invisible.net/ New & Rose Expires April 17, 2001 [Page 21] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for Syslog October 2000 Marshall T. Rose Invisible Worlds, Inc. 1179 North McDowell Boulevard Petaluma, CA 94954-6559 US Phone: +1 707 789 3700 EMail: mrose@invisible.net URI: http://invisible.net/ New & Rose Expires April 17, 2001 [Page 22] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for Syslog October 2000 Appendix A. Acknowledgements The author gratefully acknowledges the contributions of Keith McCloghrie[8]. New & Rose Expires April 17, 2001 [Page 23] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for Syslog October 2000 Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Invisible Worlds expressly disclaims any and all warranties regarding this contribution including any warranty that (a) this contribution does not violate the rights of others, (b) the owners, if any, of other rights in this contribution have been informed of the rights and permissions granted to IETF herein, and (c) any required authorizations from such owners have been obtained. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and INVISIBLE WORLDS DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. IN NO EVENT WILL INVISIBLE WORLDS BE LIABLE TO ANY OTHER PARTY INCLUDING THE IETF AND ITS MEMBERS FOR THE COST OF PROCURING SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES, LOST PROFITS, LOSS OF USE, LOSS OF DATA, OR ANY INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, INDIRECT, OR SPECIAL DAMAGES WHETHER UNDER CONTRACT, TORT, WARRANTY, OR OTHERWISE, ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THIS OR ANY OTHER AGREEMENT RELATING TO THIS DOCUMENT, WHETHER OR NOT SUCH PARTY HAD ADVANCE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. New & Rose Expires April 17, 2001 [Page 24] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for Syslog October 2000 Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. New & Rose Expires April 17, 2001 [Page 25]