Re: Logging the source port?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



I think these legal requirements are stupid.

But there is no way that I would regard adherence to Rob and Ari's
slapped together log format a defense against non-compliance. If you
have a legal obligation you have an obligation, end of story.

The W3C log format I designed is supported by all the Web servers I
use and allows for most data imaginable to be logged.


On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 4:49 AM, Arnt Gulbrandsen
<arnt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> A really big NAT serving, say, eighteen million customers, can easily be so
> dense that if there's a bit of clock skew between a web server and the NAT
> operator, another customer might have used the same port at the time
> recorded by the web server.
>
> Therefore, I think it's safer to say that it's the NAT operator's
> responsibility to log enough. Umpteen million web sites will continue to use
> apache's common log format, so the NAT operator has to log what's needed to
> work with that format anyway.
>
> Arnt
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>



-- 
-- 
New Website: http://hallambaker.com/
View Quantum of Stupid podcasts, Tuesday and Thursday each week,
http://quantumofstupid.com/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]