Network Working Group D. New Internet-Draft M.T. Rose Expires: May 14, 2001 Invisible Worlds, Inc. November 13, 2000 Reliable Delivery for syslog draft-ietf-syslog-reliable-02 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 May 14, 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 a connection-oriented protocol. New & Rose Expires May 14, 2001 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for syslog November 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. The COOKED Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.1 COOKED Profile Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.2 COOKED Profile Identification and Initialization . . . . . . 10 4.3 COOKED Profile Message Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.4 COOKED Profile Message Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.4.1 The IAM Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.4.2 The ENTRY Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.4.3 The RECEIVED Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5. Additional Provisioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.1 Message Authenticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.2 Message Replay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.3 Message Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.4 Message Observation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5.5 Summary of Recommended Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6. Initial Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 6.1 Registration: The RAW Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 6.2 Registration: The COOKED Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 7. The syslog DTD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 8. Reply Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 A. History of Significant Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 A.1 Significant Changes Since syslog-reliable-00 . . . . . . . . 27 A.2 Significant Changes Since syslog-reliable-01 . . . . . . . . 27 B. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 New & Rose Expires May 14, 2001 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for syslog November 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 May 14, 2001 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for syslog November 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 | -...-> | Relay | ---> | Collector | +--------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-----------+ As shown, more than one relay may be present between any particular device and collector. A relay may be necessary for administrative reasons. For example, a relay might run as an application proxy on a firewall. Also, there might be one relay per company department, which authenticates all the devices in the department, and which in turn authenticates itself to a company-wide collector. A relay can also serve to filter messages. For example, one relay may collect the syslog information from an entire web server farm, summarizing hit counts for report generation, forwarding "page not found" messages (indicating a possible broken link) to a collector that presents it to the webmaster, and sending more urgent messages (such as hardware failure reports) to a collector that gateways them to a pager. A relay may also be used to convert formats from a device's output to a collector's input. It should be noted that a role of device, relay, or collector is relevant only to a particular BEEP channel (q.v., below). A single server can serve as a device, a relay, and a collector, all at once, if so configured. It can even serve as a relay and a collector to New & Rose Expires May 14, 2001 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for syslog November 2000 the same device at the same time using different BEEP channels over the same connection-oriented session; this might be useful to collect status yet relay urgent error messages. 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). 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". This allows for central administration of addressing, fallback for failed relays and collectors, and static load balancing. New & Rose Expires May 14, 2001 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for syslog November 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 replies to supply one or more 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 reply 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 May 14, 2001 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for syslog November 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 replies carrying syslog event messages. The initiator sends a NUL reply 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 May 14, 2001 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for syslog November 2000 The overhead for one ANS frame is about thirty octets, once the initial handshakes have been exchanged. If this overhead is too high, then messages are likely being generated at a high rate. In this case, multiple syslog messages can be aggregated into a single ANS frame, each separated by a CRLF sequence from the preceding. The final message still MUST NOT end with a CRLF. For example, L: MSG 1 0 . 0 50 L: L: Central Services. This has not been a recording. L: END I: ANS 1 0 . 0 119 0 I: I: <29>Oct 27 13:21:08 ductwork imxpd[141]: Heating emergency. I: <29>Oct 27 13:21:09 ductwork imxpd[141]: Contact Tuttle.END I: NUL 1 0 . 119 0 I: END 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 replies the initiator sends in response MUST be formatted according to Section 3 of [1]. In particular, the syslog 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 space. The remainder of the syslog message follows this. The syslog event message MUST be transmitted as visible (printing) characters. If multiple syslog messages are included in a single ANS reply, each is separated from the preceding with a CRLF. There is no ending delimiter, but each 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 final syslog event message and the "END" marking the trailer of the BEEP frame. New & Rose Expires May 14, 2001 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for syslog November 2000 3.4 RAW Profile Semantics The listener's opening BEEP MSG message has no semantics. (It is a good place to put in an identifying greeting.) The initiator's ANS replies MUST specify a facility, severity, and textual message, as described in [1]. New & Rose Expires May 14, 2001 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for syslog November 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 tagging, allowing a better degree of automation in processing. Naturally, it includes more overhead as well in support of this. The COOKED profile supports three 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. o The "received" element contains an embedded "entry" or "received" element, identifying a list of relays through which that "entry" has passed. 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 or an "error" 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. New & Rose Expires May 14, 2001 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for syslog November 2000 4.4 COOKED Profile Message Semantics Initiators issue two elements: "iam" and "entry", each using a "MSG" message. The listener issues "ok" in "RPY" messages and "error" in "ERR" messages. (See [2]'s Section 2.3.1 for the definitions of the "error" and "ok" elements.) 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. The character data of the element is free-form human-readable text. It may be used to further identify the peer, such as by describing the physical location of the machine. An "iam" element may be sent by the initiator of the channel at any time. The listener responds to an "iam" element with an "ok" (indicating acceptance), 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 or if the authenticated user does not have authorization to serve in the specified role. It is expected that most installations will require an "iam" from the peer before accepting any "entry" messages. New & Rose Expires May 14, 2001 [Page 11] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for syslog November 2000 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 . 704 126 L: Content-type: text/xml L: L: L: ]]> L: L: END A 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 New & Rose Expires May 14, 2001 [Page 12] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for syslog November 2000 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 3.2. The other attributes have the semantics as in Section 4 of [1]. "Timestamp" is represented according to [8]. 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. These attributes may be added by either the relay or the originating device. 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 original contents of the syslog message MUST be preserved in the CDATA of the "entry" element; this includes preservation of exact content during translation from the UDP or RAW formats. In particular, the timestamps MUST NOT be rewritten in the CDATA of the "entry" element, the process name and ID MUST NOT be removed from the CDATA even if presented in the "entry" attributes as well, and so on. The "entry" element may also contain an "xml:lang" attribute, indicating the language in which the CDATA content of the tag is presented, as described in [4]. 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. New & Rose Expires May 14, 2001 [Page 13] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for syslog November 2000 A successful exchange of an "entry" element may look like this: C: MSG 1 0 . 2058 162 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 underlying connection information. An example where an "entry" element is rejected with an "error" element: C: MSG 1 2 . 2220 238 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. 4.4.3 The RECEIVED Element The "received" element serves to deliver a single "entry" element, along with a list of the relays through which that element has passed. Each "received" element contains either another "received" element or an "entry" element. Each "received" element names a FQDN and IP address of the relay or collector that received the element. New & Rose Expires May 14, 2001 [Page 14] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for syslog November 2000 Each relay, before passing on the message, wraps the entire received element in a new "received" element listing the IP address and the FQDN (if any) of the interface over which the "trace" element was received. The final collector may or may not wrap the "received" element itself, depending on provisioning by the administrator. The rationale for nesting "received" elements is to allow tagging of the enclosed element without modification thereof. That is, the relay wrapping the element can do so without disturbing any cryptographic signatures that may already be on the embedded elements. Each "received" element has a "FQDN" attribute and an "IP" attribute. The FQDN attribute SHOULD be the fully qualified domain name of the interface over which the "trace" element was received. (The FQDN can be omitted if that interface has no DNS entry.) The element also MAY include a "timestamp" attribute indicating the time at which the element was received. New & Rose Expires May 14, 2001 [Page 15] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for syslog November 2000 For example: C: MSG 1 0 . 2458 672 C: Content-Type: text/xml C: C: C: C: C: C: C: C: <29>12:22 tuner[185]: Casablanca initiated C: C: C: C: C: C: C: END S: RPY 1 0 . 1067 33 S: Content-Type: text/xml S: S: S: END Here we see Lowry's screen announce the beginning of today's movie. This information is passed out of Lowry's department and into Jack's department for logging. The choice of whether to generate an "entry" element or a "received" element at the first relay is controlled by local provisioning. When a relay receives a "received" element, it MUST add a "received" element describing itself before passing it on. When a collector receives a "received" element, it MUST act upon the enclosed "entry" element as it would had the collector received it without trace information. What the collector does with the "received" elements is left to local configuration. New & Rose Expires May 14, 2001 [Page 16] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for syslog November 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 May 14, 2001 [Page 17] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for syslog November 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 SHOULD tune using ------------------ ----------------- Authentication http://xml.resource.org/profiles/sasl/DIGEST-MD5 + Replay http://xml.resource.org/profiles/sasl/DIGEST-MD5 + Integrity http://xml.resource.org/profiles/sasl/DIGEST-MD5 + Observation http://xml.resource.org/profiles/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 May 14, 2001 [Page 18] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for syslog November 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: See Section 3.3 Message Semantics: See Section 3.4 Contact Information: See 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 Messages starting one-to-one exchanges: iam, entry, trace Messages in positive replies: ok Messages in negative replies: error Messages in one-to-many exchanges: None Message Syntax: See Section 4.3 Message Semantics: See Section 4.4 Contact Information: See the "Authors' Addresses" section of this memo New & Rose Expires May 14, 2001 [Page 19] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for syslog November 2000 7. The syslog DTD The following is the DTD defining the valid elements for the syslog over BEEP mapping. %BEEP; New & Rose Expires May 14, 2001 [Page 20] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for syslog November 2000 New & Rose Expires May 14, 2001 [Page 21] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for syslog November 2000 New & Rose Expires May 14, 2001 [Page 22] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for syslog November 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 May 14, 2001 [Page 23] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for syslog November 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 May 14, 2001 [Page 24] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for syslog November 2000 References [1] Lonvick, C., "syslog Protocol", draft-ietf-syslog-syslog-02 (work in progress), November 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] International Organization for Standardization, "Data elements and interchange formats - Information exchange - Representation of dates and times", International Standard 8601, June 1988. [9] mailto:calabrese@merck.com [10] mailto:kzm@cisco.com [11] mailto:bazsi@balabit.hu [12] mailto:djw@bbn.com New & Rose Expires May 14, 2001 [Page 25] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for syslog November 2000 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/ 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 May 14, 2001 [Page 26] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for syslog November 2000 Appendix A. History of Significant Changes A.1 Significant Changes Since syslog-reliable-00 Multiple consecutive relays have been clarified. Multiple syslog entries may appear in a single ANS reply in the RAW profile, to reduce overhead. The "iam" element is no longer answered by an "iam" element. A separate exchange is necessary, allowing either peer to reject the other's "iam". The "timestamp" attribute is compatible with ISO 8601 now. The "trace" element is added. A.2 Significant Changes Since syslog-reliable-01 Additional wording about retaining the content of "entry"'s CDATA is added. The "trace" element is removed, with the "received" element being substituted and made nestable. New & Rose Expires May 14, 2001 [Page 27] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for syslog November 2000 Appendix B. Acknowledgements The author gratefully acknowledges the contributions of Christopher Calabrese[9], Keith McCloghrie[10], Balazs Scheidler[11], and David Waitzman[12]. New & Rose Expires May 14, 2001 [Page 28] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for syslog November 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 May 14, 2001 [Page 29] Internet-Draft Reliable Delivery for syslog November 2000 Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. New & Rose Expires May 14, 2001 [Page 30]