summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/doc/rfc/rfc5424.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc5424.txt')
-rw-r--r--doc/rfc/rfc5424.txt2131
1 files changed, 2131 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc5424.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc5424.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4180d0f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc5424.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,2131 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group R. Gerhards
+Request for Comments: 5424 Adiscon GmbH
+Obsoletes: 3164 March 2009
+Category: Standards Track
+
+
+ The Syslog Protocol
+
+Status of This Memo
+
+ This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
+ Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
+ improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
+ Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
+ and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+ Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
+ document authors. All rights reserved.
+
+ This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
+ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
+ publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
+ Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
+ and restrictions with respect to this document.
+
+ This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
+ Contributions published or made publicly available before November
+ 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
+ material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
+ modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
+ Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
+ the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
+ outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
+ not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
+ it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
+ than English.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Gerhards Standards Track [Page 1]
+
+RFC 5424 The Syslog Protocol March 2009
+
+
+Abstract
+
+ This document describes the syslog protocol, which is used to convey
+ event notification messages. This protocol utilizes a layered
+ architecture, which allows the use of any number of transport
+ protocols for transmission of syslog messages. It also provides a
+ message format that allows vendor-specific extensions to be provided
+ in a structured way.
+
+ This document has been written with the original design goals for
+ traditional syslog in mind. The need for a new layered specification
+ has arisen because standardization efforts for reliable and secure
+ syslog extensions suffer from the lack of a Standards-Track and
+ transport-independent RFC. Without this document, each other
+ standard needs to define its own syslog packet format and transport
+ mechanism, which over time will introduce subtle compatibility
+ issues. This document tries to provide a foundation that syslog
+ extensions can build on. This layered architecture approach also
+ provides a solid basis that allows code to be written once for each
+ syslog feature rather than once for each transport.
+
+ This document obsoletes RFC 3164.
+
+Table of Contents
+
+ 1. Introduction ....................................................4
+ 2. Conventions Used in This Document ...............................4
+ 3. Definitions .....................................................4
+ 4. Basic Principles ................................................5
+ 4.1. Example Deployment Scenarios ...............................6
+ 5. Transport Layer Protocol ........................................7
+ 5.1. Minimum Required Transport Mapping .........................7
+ 6. Syslog Message Format ...........................................8
+ 6.1. Message Length .............................................9
+ 6.2. HEADER .....................................................9
+ 6.2.1. PRI .................................................9
+ 6.2.2. VERSION ............................................11
+ 6.2.3. TIMESTAMP ..........................................11
+ 6.2.4. HOSTNAME ...........................................13
+ 6.2.5. APP-NAME ...........................................14
+ 6.2.6. PROCID .............................................14
+ 6.2.7. MSGID ..............................................14
+ 6.3. STRUCTURED-DATA ...........................................15
+ 6.3.1. SD-ELEMENT .........................................15
+ 6.3.2. SD-ID ..............................................15
+ 6.3.3. SD-PARAM ...........................................16
+ 6.3.4. Change Control .....................................17
+ 6.3.5. Examples ...........................................17
+
+
+
+Gerhards Standards Track [Page 2]
+
+RFC 5424 The Syslog Protocol March 2009
+
+
+ 6.4. MSG .......................................................18
+ 6.5. Examples ..................................................19
+ 7. Structured Data IDs ............................................20
+ 7.1. timeQuality ...............................................20
+ 7.1.1. tzKnown ............................................21
+ 7.1.2. isSynced ...........................................21
+ 7.1.3. syncAccuracy .......................................21
+ 7.1.4. Examples ...........................................21
+ 7.2. origin ....................................................22
+ 7.2.1. ip .................................................22
+ 7.2.2. enterpriseId .......................................22
+ 7.2.3. software ...........................................23
+ 7.2.4. swVersion ..........................................23
+ 7.2.5. Example ............................................23
+ 7.3. meta ......................................................24
+ 7.3.1. sequenceId .........................................24
+ 7.3.2. sysUpTime ..........................................24
+ 7.3.3. language ...........................................24
+ 8. Security Considerations ........................................24
+ 8.1. UNICODE ...................................................24
+ 8.2. Control Characters ........................................25
+ 8.3. Message Truncation ........................................26
+ 8.4. Replay ....................................................26
+ 8.5. Reliable Delivery .........................................26
+ 8.6. Congestion Control ........................................27
+ 8.7. Message Integrity .........................................28
+ 8.8. Message Observation .......................................28
+ 8.9. Inappropriate Configuration ...............................28
+ 8.10. Forwarding Loop ..........................................29
+ 8.11. Load Considerations ......................................29
+ 8.12. Denial of Service ........................................29
+ 9. IANA Considerations ............................................30
+ 9.1. VERSION ...................................................30
+ 9.2. SD-IDs ....................................................30
+ 10. Working Group .................................................31
+ 11. Acknowledgments ...............................................31
+ 12. References ....................................................32
+ 12.1. Normative References .....................................32
+ 12.2. Informative References ...................................33
+ Appendix A. Implementer Guidelines ...............................34
+ A.1. Relationship with BSD Syslog ..............................34
+ A.2. Message Length ............................................35
+ A.3. Severity Values ..........................................36
+ A.4. TIME-SECFRAC Precision ....................................36
+ A.5. Case Convention for Names ................................36
+ A.6. Syslog Applications Without Knowledge of Time ............37
+ A.7. Notes on the timeQuality SD-ID ............................37
+ A.8. UTF-8 Encoding and the BOM ................................37
+
+
+
+Gerhards Standards Track [Page 3]
+
+RFC 5424 The Syslog Protocol March 2009
+
+
+1. Introduction
+
+ This document describes a layered architecture for syslog. The goal
+ of this architecture is to separate message content from message
+ transport while enabling easy extensibility for each layer.
+
+ This document describes the standard format for syslog messages and
+ outlines the concept of transport mappings. It also describes
+ structured data elements, which can be used to transmit easily
+ parseable, structured information, and allows for vendor extensions.
+
+ This document does not describe any storage format for syslog
+ messages. It is beyond of the scope of the syslog protocol and is
+ unnecessary for system interoperability.
+
+ This document has been written with the original design goals for
+ traditional syslog in mind. The need for a new layered specification
+ has arisen because standardization efforts for reliable and secure
+ syslog extensions suffer from the lack of a Standards-Track and
+ transport-independent RFC. Without this document, each other
+ standard would need to define its own syslog packet format and
+ transport mechanism, which over time will introduce subtle
+ compatibility issues. This document tries to provide a foundation
+ that syslog extensions can build on. This layered architecture
+ approach also provides a solid basis that allows code to be written
+ once for each syslog feature instead of once for each transport.
+
+ This document obsoletes RFC 3164, which is an Informational document
+ describing some implementations found in the field.
+
+2. Conventions Used in This Document
+
+ The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
+ "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
+ document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
+
+3. Definitions
+
+ Syslog utilizes three layers:
+
+ o "syslog content" is the management information contained in a
+ syslog message.
+
+ o The "syslog application" layer handles generation, interpretation,
+ routing, and storage of syslog messages.
+
+ o The "syslog transport" layer puts messages on the wire and takes
+ them off the wire.
+
+
+
+Gerhards Standards Track [Page 4]
+
+RFC 5424 The Syslog Protocol March 2009
+
+
+ Certain types of functions are performed at each conceptual layer:
+
+ o An "originator" generates syslog content to be carried in a
+ message.
+
+ o A "collector" gathers syslog content for further analysis.
+
+ o A "relay" forwards messages, accepting messages from originators
+ or other relays and sending them to collectors or other relays.
+
+ o A "transport sender" passes syslog messages to a specific
+ transport protocol.
+
+ o A "transport receiver" takes syslog messages from a specific
+ transport protocol.
+
+ Diagram 1 shows the different entities separated by layer.
+
+ +---------------------+ +---------------------+
+ | content | | content |
+ |---------------------| |---------------------|
+ | syslog application | | syslog application | (originator,
+ | | | | collector, relay)
+ |---------------------| |---------------------|
+ | syslog transport | | syslog transport | (transport sender,
+ | | | | (transport receiver)
+ +---------------------+ +---------------------+
+ ^ ^
+ | |
+ --------------------------
+
+ Diagram 1. Syslog Layers
+
+4. Basic Principles
+
+ The following principles apply to syslog communication:
+
+ o The syslog protocol does not provide acknowledgment of message
+ delivery. Though some transports may provide status information,
+ conceptually, syslog is a pure simplex communications protocol.
+
+ o Originators and relays may be configured to send the same message
+ to multiple collectors and relays.
+
+ o Originator, relay, and collector functionality may reside on the
+ same system.
+
+
+
+
+
+Gerhards Standards Track [Page 5]
+
+RFC 5424 The Syslog Protocol March 2009
+
+
+4.1. Example Deployment Scenarios
+
+ Sample deployment scenarios are shown in Diagram 2. Other
+ arrangements of these examples are also acceptable. As noted, in the
+ following diagram, relays may send all or some of the messages that
+ they receive and also send messages that they generate internally.
+ The boxes represent syslog-enabled applications.
+
+ +----------+ +---------+
+ |Originator|---->----|Collector|
+ +----------+ +---------+
+
+ +----------+ +-----+ +---------+
+ |Originator|---->----|Relay|---->----|Collector|
+ +----------+ +-----+ +---------+
+
+ +----------+ +-----+ +-----+ +---------+
+ |Originator|-->--|Relay|-->--..-->--|Relay|-->--|Collector|
+ +----------+ +-----+ +-----+ +---------+
+
+ +----------+ +-----+ +---------+
+ |Originator|---->----|Relay|---->----|Collector|
+ | |-+ +-----+ +---------+
+ +----------+ \
+ \ +-----+ +---------+
+ +->--|Relay|---->----|Collector|
+ +-----+ +---------+
+
+ +----------+ +---------+
+ |Originator|---->----|Collector|
+ | |-+ +---------+
+ +----------+ \
+ \ +-----+ +---------+
+ +->--|Relay|---->----|Collector|
+ +-----+ +---------+
+
+ +----------+ +-----+ +---------+
+ |Originator|---->----|Relay|---->-------|Collector|
+ | |-+ +-----+ +---| |
+ +----------+ \ / +---------+
+ \ +-----+ /
+ +->--|Relay|-->--/
+ +-----+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Gerhards Standards Track [Page 6]
+
+RFC 5424 The Syslog Protocol March 2009
+
+
+ +----------+ +-----+ +---------+
+ |Originator|---->----|Relay|---->--------------|Collector|
+ | |-+ +-----+ +--| |
+ +----------+ \ / +---------+
+ \ +------------+ /
+ \ |+----------+| /
+ +->-||Relay ||->---/
+ |+----------|| /
+ ||Originator||->-/
+ |+----------+|
+ +------------+
+
+ Diagram 2. Some Possible Syslog Deployment Scenarios
+
+5. Transport Layer Protocol
+
+ This document does not specify any transport layer protocol.
+ Instead, it describes the format of a syslog message in a transport
+ layer independent way. Syslog transports are defined in other
+ documents. One such transport is defined in [RFC5426] and is
+ consistent with the traditional UDP transport. This transport is
+ needed to maintain interoperability as the UDP transport has
+ historically been used for the transmission of syslog messages.
+
+ Any syslog transport protocol MUST NOT deliberately alter the syslog
+ message. If the transport protocol needs to perform temporary
+ transformations at the transport sender, these transformations MUST
+ be reversed by the transport protocol at the transport receiver so
+ that the relay or collector will see an exact copy of the message
+ generated by the originator or relay. Otherwise, end-to-end
+ cryptographic verifiers (such as signatures) will be broken. Of
+ course, message alteration might occur due to transmission errors or
+ other problems. Guarding against such alterations is not within the
+ scope of this document.
+
+5.1. Minimum Required Transport Mapping
+
+ All implementations of this specification MUST support a TLS-based
+ transport as described in [RFC5425].
+
+ All implementations of this specification SHOULD also support a
+ UDP-based transport as described in [RFC5426].
+
+ It is RECOMMENDED that deployments of this specification use the TLS-
+ based transport.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Gerhards Standards Track [Page 7]
+
+RFC 5424 The Syslog Protocol March 2009
+
+
+6. Syslog Message Format
+
+ The syslog message has the following ABNF [RFC5234] definition:
+
+ SYSLOG-MSG = HEADER SP STRUCTURED-DATA [SP MSG]
+
+ HEADER = PRI VERSION SP TIMESTAMP SP HOSTNAME
+ SP APP-NAME SP PROCID SP MSGID
+ PRI = "<" PRIVAL ">"
+ PRIVAL = 1*3DIGIT ; range 0 .. 191
+ VERSION = NONZERO-DIGIT 0*2DIGIT
+ HOSTNAME = NILVALUE / 1*255PRINTUSASCII
+
+ APP-NAME = NILVALUE / 1*48PRINTUSASCII
+ PROCID = NILVALUE / 1*128PRINTUSASCII
+ MSGID = NILVALUE / 1*32PRINTUSASCII
+
+ TIMESTAMP = NILVALUE / FULL-DATE "T" FULL-TIME
+ FULL-DATE = DATE-FULLYEAR "-" DATE-MONTH "-" DATE-MDAY
+ DATE-FULLYEAR = 4DIGIT
+ DATE-MONTH = 2DIGIT ; 01-12
+ DATE-MDAY = 2DIGIT ; 01-28, 01-29, 01-30, 01-31 based on
+ ; month/year
+ FULL-TIME = PARTIAL-TIME TIME-OFFSET
+ PARTIAL-TIME = TIME-HOUR ":" TIME-MINUTE ":" TIME-SECOND
+ [TIME-SECFRAC]
+ TIME-HOUR = 2DIGIT ; 00-23
+ TIME-MINUTE = 2DIGIT ; 00-59
+ TIME-SECOND = 2DIGIT ; 00-59
+ TIME-SECFRAC = "." 1*6DIGIT
+ TIME-OFFSET = "Z" / TIME-NUMOFFSET
+ TIME-NUMOFFSET = ("+" / "-") TIME-HOUR ":" TIME-MINUTE
+
+
+ STRUCTURED-DATA = NILVALUE / 1*SD-ELEMENT
+ SD-ELEMENT = "[" SD-ID *(SP SD-PARAM) "]"
+ SD-PARAM = PARAM-NAME "=" %d34 PARAM-VALUE %d34
+ SD-ID = SD-NAME
+ PARAM-NAME = SD-NAME
+ PARAM-VALUE = UTF-8-STRING ; characters '"', '\' and
+ ; ']' MUST be escaped.
+ SD-NAME = 1*32PRINTUSASCII
+ ; except '=', SP, ']', %d34 (")
+
+ MSG = MSG-ANY / MSG-UTF8
+ MSG-ANY = *OCTET ; not starting with BOM
+ MSG-UTF8 = BOM UTF-8-STRING
+ BOM = %xEF.BB.BF
+
+
+
+Gerhards Standards Track [Page 8]
+
+RFC 5424 The Syslog Protocol March 2009
+
+
+ UTF-8-STRING = *OCTET ; UTF-8 string as specified
+ ; in RFC 3629
+
+ OCTET = %d00-255
+ SP = %d32
+ PRINTUSASCII = %d33-126
+ NONZERO-DIGIT = %d49-57
+ DIGIT = %d48 / NONZERO-DIGIT
+ NILVALUE = "-"
+
+6.1. Message Length
+
+ Syslog message size limits are dictated by the syslog transport
+ mapping in use. There is no upper limit per se. Each transport
+ mapping defines the minimum maximum required message length support,
+ and the minimum maximum MUST be at least 480 octets in length.
+
+ Any transport receiver MUST be able to accept messages of up to and
+ including 480 octets in length. All transport receiver
+ implementations SHOULD be able to accept messages of up to and
+ including 2048 octets in length. Transport receivers MAY receive
+ messages larger than 2048 octets in length. If a transport receiver
+ receives a message with a length larger than it supports, the
+ transport receiver SHOULD truncate the payload. Alternatively, it
+ MAY discard the message.
+
+ If a transport receiver truncates messages, the truncation MUST occur
+ at the end of the message. After truncation, the message MAY contain
+ invalid UTF-8 encoding or invalid STRUCTURED-DATA. The transport
+ receiver MAY discard the message or MAY try to process as much as
+ possible in this case.
+
+6.2. HEADER
+
+ The character set used in the HEADER MUST be seven-bit ASCII in an
+ eight-bit field as described in [RFC5234]. These are the ASCII codes
+ as defined in "USA Standard Code for Information Interchange"
+ [ANSI.X3-4.1968].
+
+ The header format is designed to provide some interoperability with
+ older BSD-based syslog. For details on this, see Appendix A.1.
+
+6.2.1. PRI
+
+ The PRI part MUST have three, four, or five characters and will be
+ bound with angle brackets as the first and last characters. The PRI
+ part starts with a leading "<" ('less-than' character, %d60),
+ followed by a number, which is followed by a ">" ('greater-than'
+
+
+
+Gerhards Standards Track [Page 9]
+
+RFC 5424 The Syslog Protocol March 2009
+
+
+ character, %d62). The number contained within these angle brackets
+ is known as the Priority value (PRIVAL) and represents both the
+ Facility and Severity. The Priority value consists of one, two, or
+ three decimal integers (ABNF DIGITS) using values of %d48 (for "0")
+ through %d57 (for "9").
+
+ Facility and Severity values are not normative but often used. They
+ are described in the following tables for purely informational
+ purposes. Facility values MUST be in the range of 0 to 23 inclusive.
+
+ Numerical Facility
+ Code
+
+ 0 kernel messages
+ 1 user-level messages
+ 2 mail system
+ 3 system daemons
+ 4 security/authorization messages
+ 5 messages generated internally by syslogd
+ 6 line printer subsystem
+ 7 network news subsystem
+ 8 UUCP subsystem
+ 9 clock daemon
+ 10 security/authorization messages
+ 11 FTP daemon
+ 12 NTP subsystem
+ 13 log audit
+ 14 log alert
+ 15 clock daemon (note 2)
+ 16 local use 0 (local0)
+ 17 local use 1 (local1)
+ 18 local use 2 (local2)
+ 19 local use 3 (local3)
+ 20 local use 4 (local4)
+ 21 local use 5 (local5)
+ 22 local use 6 (local6)
+ 23 local use 7 (local7)
+
+ Table 1. Syslog Message Facilities
+
+ Each message Priority also has a decimal Severity level indicator.
+ These are described in the following table along with their numerical
+ values. Severity values MUST be in the range of 0 to 7 inclusive.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Gerhards Standards Track [Page 10]
+
+RFC 5424 The Syslog Protocol March 2009
+
+
+ Numerical Severity
+ Code
+
+ 0 Emergency: system is unusable
+ 1 Alert: action must be taken immediately
+ 2 Critical: critical conditions
+ 3 Error: error conditions
+ 4 Warning: warning conditions
+ 5 Notice: normal but significant condition
+ 6 Informational: informational messages
+ 7 Debug: debug-level messages
+
+ Table 2. Syslog Message Severities
+
+ The Priority value is calculated by first multiplying the Facility
+ number by 8 and then adding the numerical value of the Severity. For
+ example, a kernel message (Facility=0) with a Severity of Emergency
+ (Severity=0) would have a Priority value of 0. Also, a "local use 4"
+ message (Facility=20) with a Severity of Notice (Severity=5) would
+ have a Priority value of 165. In the PRI of a syslog message, these
+ values would be placed between the angle brackets as <0> and <165>
+ respectively. The only time a value of "0" follows the "<" is for
+ the Priority value of "0". Otherwise, leading "0"s MUST NOT be used.
+
+6.2.2. VERSION
+
+ The VERSION field denotes the version of the syslog protocol
+ specification. The version number MUST be incremented for any new
+ syslog protocol specification that changes any part of the HEADER
+ format. Changes include the addition or removal of fields, or a
+ change of syntax or semantics of existing fields. This document uses
+ a VERSION value of "1". The VERSION values are IANA-assigned
+ (Section 9.1) via the Standards Action method as described in
+ [RFC5226].
+
+6.2.3. TIMESTAMP
+
+ The TIMESTAMP field is a formalized timestamp derived from [RFC3339].
+
+ Whereas [RFC3339] makes allowances for multiple syntaxes, this
+ document imposes further restrictions. The TIMESTAMP value MUST
+ follow these restrictions:
+
+ o The "T" and "Z" characters in this syntax MUST be upper case.
+
+ o Usage of the "T" character is REQUIRED.
+
+ o Leap seconds MUST NOT be used.
+
+
+
+Gerhards Standards Track [Page 11]
+
+RFC 5424 The Syslog Protocol March 2009
+
+
+ The originator SHOULD include TIME-SECFRAC if its clock accuracy and
+ performance permit. The "timeQuality" SD-ID described in Section 7.1
+ allows the originator to specify the accuracy and trustworthiness of
+ the timestamp.
+
+ A syslog application MUST use the NILVALUE as TIMESTAMP if the syslog
+ application is incapable of obtaining system time.
+
+6.2.3.1. Examples
+
+ Example 1
+
+ 1985-04-12T23:20:50.52Z
+
+ This represents 20 minutes and 50.52 seconds after the 23rd hour of
+ 12 April 1985 in UTC.
+
+ Example 2
+
+ 1985-04-12T19:20:50.52-04:00
+
+ This represents the same time as in example 1, but expressed in US
+ Eastern Standard Time (observing daylight savings time).
+
+ Example 3
+
+ 2003-10-11T22:14:15.003Z
+
+ This represents 11 October 2003 at 10:14:15pm, 3 milliseconds into
+ the next second. The timestamp is in UTC. The timestamp provides
+ millisecond resolution. The creator may have actually had a better
+ resolution, but providing just three digits for the fractional part
+ of a second does not tell us.
+
+ Example 4
+
+ 2003-08-24T05:14:15.000003-07:00
+
+ This represents 24 August 2003 at 05:14:15am, 3 microseconds into the
+ next second. The microsecond resolution is indicated by the
+ additional digits in TIME-SECFRAC. The timestamp indicates that its
+ local time is -7 hours from UTC. This timestamp might be created in
+ the US Pacific time zone during daylight savings time.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Gerhards Standards Track [Page 12]
+
+RFC 5424 The Syslog Protocol March 2009
+
+
+ Example 5 - An Invalid TIMESTAMP
+
+ 2003-08-24T05:14:15.000000003-07:00
+
+ This example is nearly the same as Example 4, but it is specifying
+ TIME-SECFRAC in nanoseconds. This results in TIME-SECFRAC being
+ longer than the allowed 6 digits, which invalidates it.
+
+6.2.4. HOSTNAME
+
+ The HOSTNAME field identifies the machine that originally sent the
+ syslog message.
+
+ The HOSTNAME field SHOULD contain the hostname and the domain name of
+ the originator in the format specified in STD 13 [RFC1034]. This
+ format is called a Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) in this
+ document.
+
+ In practice, not all syslog applications are able to provide an FQDN.
+ As such, other values MAY also be present in HOSTNAME. This document
+ makes provisions for using other values in such situations. A syslog
+ application SHOULD provide the most specific available value first.
+ The order of preference for the contents of the HOSTNAME field is as
+ follows:
+
+ 1. FQDN
+
+ 2. Static IP address
+
+ 3. hostname
+
+ 4. Dynamic IP address
+
+ 5. the NILVALUE
+
+ If an IPv4 address is used, it MUST be in the format of the dotted
+ decimal notation as used in STD 13 [RFC1035]. If an IPv6 address is
+ used, a valid textual representation as described in [RFC4291],
+ Section 2.2, MUST be used.
+
+ Syslog applications SHOULD consistently use the same value in the
+ HOSTNAME field for as long as possible.
+
+ The NILVALUE SHOULD only be used when the syslog application has no
+ way to obtain its real hostname. This situation is considered highly
+ unlikely.
+
+
+
+
+
+Gerhards Standards Track [Page 13]
+
+RFC 5424 The Syslog Protocol March 2009
+
+
+6.2.5. APP-NAME
+
+ The APP-NAME field SHOULD identify the device or application that
+ originated the message. It is a string without further semantics.
+ It is intended for filtering messages on a relay or collector.
+
+ The NILVALUE MAY be used when the syslog application has no idea of
+ its APP-NAME or cannot provide that information. It may be that a
+ device is unable to provide that information either because of a
+ local policy decision, or because the information is not available,
+ or not applicable, on the device.
+
+ This field MAY be operator-assigned.
+
+6.2.6. PROCID
+
+ PROCID is a value that is included in the message, having no
+ interoperable meaning, except that a change in the value indicates
+ there has been a discontinuity in syslog reporting. The field does
+ not have any specific syntax or semantics; the value is
+ implementation-dependent and/or operator-assigned. The NILVALUE MAY
+ be used when no value is provided.
+
+ The PROCID field is often used to provide the process name or process
+ ID associated with a syslog system. The NILVALUE might be used when
+ a process ID is not available. On an embedded system without any
+ operating system process ID, PROCID might be a reboot ID.
+
+ PROCID can enable log analyzers to detect discontinuities in syslog
+ reporting by detecting a change in the syslog process ID. However,
+ PROCID is not a reliable identification of a restarted process since
+ the restarted syslog process might be assigned the same process ID as
+ the previous syslog process.
+
+ PROCID can also be used to identify which messages belong to a group
+ of messages. For example, an SMTP mail transfer agent might put its
+ SMTP transaction ID into PROCID, which would allow the collector or
+ relay to group messages based on the SMTP transaction.
+
+6.2.7. MSGID
+
+ The MSGID SHOULD identify the type of message. For example, a
+ firewall might use the MSGID "TCPIN" for incoming TCP traffic and the
+ MSGID "TCPOUT" for outgoing TCP traffic. Messages with the same
+ MSGID should reflect events of the same semantics. The MSGID itself
+ is a string without further semantics. It is intended for filtering
+ messages on a relay or collector.
+
+
+
+
+Gerhards Standards Track [Page 14]
+
+RFC 5424 The Syslog Protocol March 2009
+
+
+ The NILVALUE SHOULD be used when the syslog application does not, or
+ cannot, provide any value.
+
+ This field MAY be operator-assigned.
+
+6.3. STRUCTURED-DATA
+
+ STRUCTURED-DATA provides a mechanism to express information in a well
+ defined, easily parseable and interpretable data format. There are
+ multiple usage scenarios. For example, it may express meta-
+ information about the syslog message or application-specific
+ information such as traffic counters or IP addresses.
+
+ STRUCTURED-DATA can contain zero, one, or multiple structured data
+ elements, which are referred to as "SD-ELEMENT" in this document.
+
+ In case of zero structured data elements, the STRUCTURED-DATA field
+ MUST contain the NILVALUE.
+
+ The character set used in STRUCTURED-DATA MUST be seven-bit ASCII in
+ an eight-bit field as described in [RFC5234]. These are the ASCII
+ codes as defined in "USA Standard Code for Information Interchange"
+ [ANSI.X3-4.1968]. An exception is the PARAM-VALUE field (see
+ Section 6.3.3), in which UTF-8 encoding MUST be used.
+
+ A collector MAY ignore malformed STRUCTURED-DATA elements. A relay
+ MUST forward malformed STRUCTURED-DATA without any alteration.
+
+6.3.1. SD-ELEMENT
+
+ An SD-ELEMENT consists of a name and parameter name-value pairs. The
+ name is referred to as SD-ID. The name-value pairs are referred to
+ as "SD-PARAM".
+
+6.3.2. SD-ID
+
+ SD-IDs are case-sensitive and uniquely identify the type and purpose
+ of the SD-ELEMENT. The same SD-ID MUST NOT exist more than once in a
+ message.
+
+ There are two formats for SD-ID names:
+
+ o Names that do not contain an at-sign ("@", ABNF %d64) are reserved
+ to be assigned by IETF Review as described in BCP26 [RFC5226].
+ Currently, these are the names defined in Section 7. Names of
+ this format are only valid if they are first registered with the
+ IANA. Registered names MUST NOT contain an at-sign ('@', ABNF
+
+
+
+
+Gerhards Standards Track [Page 15]
+
+RFC 5424 The Syslog Protocol March 2009
+
+
+ %d64), an equal-sign ('=', ABNF %d61), a closing brace (']', ABNF
+ %d93), a quote-character ('"', ABNF %d34), whitespace, or control
+ characters (ASCII code 127 and codes 32 or less).
+
+ o Anyone can define additional SD-IDs using names in the format
+ name@<private enterprise number>, e.g., "ourSDID@32473". The
+ format of the part preceding the at-sign is not specified;
+ however, these names MUST be printable US-ASCII strings, and MUST
+ NOT contain an at-sign ('@', ABNF %d64), an equal-sign ('=', ABNF
+ %d61), a closing brace (']', ABNF %d93), a quote-character ('"',
+ ABNF %d34), whitespace, or control characters. The part following
+ the at-sign MUST be a private enterprise number as specified in
+ Section 7.2.2. Please note that throughout this document the
+ value of 32473 is used for all private enterprise numbers. This
+ value has been reserved by IANA to be used as an example number in
+ documentation. Implementors will need to use their own private
+ enterprise number for the enterpriseId parameter, and when
+ creating locally extensible SD-ID names.
+
+6.3.3. SD-PARAM
+
+ Each SD-PARAM consists of a name, referred to as PARAM-NAME, and a
+ value, referred to as PARAM-VALUE.
+
+ PARAM-NAME is case-sensitive. IANA controls all PARAM-NAMEs, with
+ the exception of those in SD-IDs whose names contain an at-sign. The
+ PARAM-NAME scope is within a specific SD-ID. Thus, equally named
+ PARAM-NAME values contained in two different SD-IDs are not the same.
+
+ To support international characters, the PARAM-VALUE field MUST be
+ encoded using UTF-8. A syslog application MAY issue any valid UTF-8
+ sequence. A syslog application MUST accept any valid UTF-8 sequence
+ in the "shortest form". It MUST NOT fail if control characters are
+ present in PARAM-VALUE. The syslog application MAY modify messages
+ containing control characters (e.g., by changing an octet with value
+ 0 (USASCII NUL) to the four characters "#000"). For the reasons
+ outlined in UNICODE TR36 [UNICODE-TR36], section 3.1, an originator
+ MUST encode messages in the "shortest form" and a collector or relay
+ MUST NOT interpret messages in the "non-shortest form".
+
+ Inside PARAM-VALUE, the characters '"' (ABNF %d34), '\' (ABNF %d92),
+ and ']' (ABNF %d93) MUST be escaped. This is necessary to avoid
+ parsing errors. Escaping ']' would not strictly be necessary but is
+ REQUIRED by this specification to avoid syslog application
+ implementation errors. Each of these three characters MUST be
+ escaped as '\"', '\\', and '\]' respectively. The backslash is used
+
+
+
+
+
+Gerhards Standards Track [Page 16]
+
+RFC 5424 The Syslog Protocol March 2009
+
+
+ for control character escaping for consistency with its use for
+ escaping in other parts of the syslog message as well as in
+ traditional syslog.
+
+ A backslash ('\') followed by none of the three described characters
+ is considered an invalid escape sequence. In this case, the
+ backslash MUST be treated as a regular backslash and the following
+ character as a regular character. Thus, the invalid sequence MUST
+ not be altered.
+
+ An SD-PARAM MAY be repeated multiple times inside an SD-ELEMENT.
+
+6.3.4. Change Control
+
+ Once SD-IDs and PARAM-NAMEs are defined, syntax and semantics of
+ these objects MUST NOT be altered. Should a change to an existing
+ object be desired, a new SD-ID or PARAM-NAME MUST be created and the
+ old one remain unchanged. OPTIONAL PARAM-NAMEs MAY be added to an
+ existing SD-ID.
+
+6.3.5. Examples
+
+ All examples in this section show only the structured data part of
+ the message. Examples should be considered to be on one line. They
+ are wrapped on multiple lines in this document for readability
+ purposes. A description is given after each example.
+
+ Example 1 - Valid
+
+ [exampleSDID@32473 iut="3" eventSource="Application"
+ eventID="1011"]
+
+ This example is a structured data element with a non-IANA controlled
+ SD-ID of type "exampleSDID@32473", which has three parameters.
+
+ Example 2 - Valid
+
+ [exampleSDID@32473 iut="3" eventSource="Application"
+ eventID="1011"][examplePriority@32473 class="high"]
+
+ This is the same example as in 1, but with a second structured data
+ element. Please note that the structured data element immediately
+ follows the first one (there is no SP between them).
+
+ Example 3 - Invalid
+
+ [exampleSDID@32473 iut="3" eventSource="Application"
+ eventID="1011"] [examplePriority@32473 class="high"]
+
+
+
+Gerhards Standards Track [Page 17]
+
+RFC 5424 The Syslog Protocol March 2009
+
+
+ This is nearly the same example as 2, but it has a subtle error --
+ there is an SP character between the two structured data elements
+ ("]SP["). This is invalid. It will cause the STRUCTURED-DATA field
+ to end after the first element. The second element will be
+ interpreted as part of the MSG field.
+
+ Example 4 - Invalid
+
+ [ exampleSDID@32473 iut="3" eventSource="Application"
+ eventID="1011"][examplePriority@32473 class="high"]
+
+ This example is nearly the same as 2. It has another subtle error --
+ the SP character occurs after the initial bracket. A structured data
+ element SD-ID MUST immediately follow the beginning bracket, so the
+ SP character invalidates the STRUCTURED-DATA. A syslog application
+ MAY discard this message.
+
+ Example 5 - Valid
+
+ [sigSig ver="1" rsID="1234" ... signature="..."]
+
+ Example 5 is a valid example. It shows a hypothetical IANA-assigned
+ SD-ID. The ellipses denote missing content, which has been left out
+ of this example for brevity.
+
+6.4. MSG
+
+ The MSG part contains a free-form message that provides information
+ about the event.
+
+ The character set used in MSG SHOULD be UNICODE, encoded using UTF-8
+ as specified in [RFC3629]. If the syslog application cannot encode
+ the MSG in Unicode, it MAY use any other encoding.
+
+ The syslog application SHOULD avoid octet values below 32 (the
+ traditional US-ASCII control character range except DEL). These
+ values are legal, but a syslog application MAY modify these
+ characters upon reception. For example, it might change them into an
+ escape sequence (e.g., value 0 may be changed to "\0"). A syslog
+ application SHOULD NOT modify any other octet values.
+
+ If a syslog application encodes MSG in UTF-8, the string MUST start
+ with the Unicode byte order mask (BOM), which for UTF-8 is ABNF
+ %xEF.BB.BF. The syslog application MUST encode in the "shortest
+ form" and MAY use any valid UTF-8 sequence.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Gerhards Standards Track [Page 18]
+
+RFC 5424 The Syslog Protocol March 2009
+
+
+ If a syslog application is processing an MSG starting with a BOM and
+ the MSG contains UTF-8 that is not shortest form, the MSG MUST NOT be
+ interpreted as being encoded in UTF-8, for the reasons outlined in
+ [UNICODE-TR36], Section 3.1. Guidance about this is given in
+ Appendix A.8.
+
+ Also, according to UNICODE TR36 [UNICODE-TR36], a syslog application
+ MUST NOT interpret messages in the "non-shortest form". It MUST NOT
+ interpret invalid UTF-8 sequences.
+
+6.5. Examples
+
+ The following are examples of valid syslog messages. A description
+ of each example can be found below it. The examples are based on
+ similar examples from [RFC3164] and may be familiar to readers. The
+ otherwise-unprintable Unicode BOM is represented as "BOM" in the
+ examples.
+
+ Example 1 - with no STRUCTURED-DATA
+
+ <34>1 2003-10-11T22:14:15.003Z mymachine.example.com su - ID47
+ - BOM'su root' failed for lonvick on /dev/pts/8
+
+ In this example, the VERSION is 1 and the Facility has the value of
+ 4. The Severity is 2. The message was created on 11 October 2003 at
+ 10:14:15pm UTC, 3 milliseconds into the next second. The message
+ originated from a host that identifies itself as
+ "mymachine.example.com". The APP-NAME is "su" and the PROCID is
+ unknown. The MSGID is "ID47". The MSG is "'su root' failed for
+ lonvick...", encoded in UTF-8. The encoding is defined by the BOM.
+ There is no STRUCTURED-DATA present in the message; this is indicated
+ by "-" in the STRUCTURED-DATA field.
+
+ Example 2 - with no STRUCTURED-DATA
+
+ <165>1 2003-08-24T05:14:15.000003-07:00 192.0.2.1
+ myproc 8710 - - %% It's time to make the do-nuts.
+
+ In this example, the VERSION is again 1. The Facility is 20, the
+ Severity 5. The message was created on 24 August 2003 at 5:14:15am,
+ with a -7 hour offset from UTC, 3 microseconds into the next second.
+ The HOSTNAME is "192.0.2.1", so the syslog application did not know
+ its FQDN and used one of its IPv4 addresses instead. The APP-NAME is
+ "myproc" and the PROCID is "8710" (for example, this could be the
+ UNIX PID). There is no STRUCTURED-DATA present in the message; this
+ is indicated by "-" in the STRUCTURED-DATA field. There is no
+ specific MSGID and this is indicated by the "-" in the MSGID field.
+
+
+
+
+Gerhards Standards Track [Page 19]
+
+RFC 5424 The Syslog Protocol March 2009
+
+
+ The message is "%% It's time to make the do-nuts.". As the Unicode
+ BOM is missing, the syslog application does not know the encoding of
+ the MSG part.
+
+ Example 3 - with STRUCTURED-DATA
+
+ <165>1 2003-10-11T22:14:15.003Z mymachine.example.com
+ evntslog - ID47 [exampleSDID@32473 iut="3" eventSource=
+ "Application" eventID="1011"] BOMAn application
+ event log entry...
+
+ This example is modeled after Example 1. However, this time it
+ contains STRUCTURED-DATA, a single element with the value
+ "[exampleSDID@32473 iut="3" eventSource="Application"
+ eventID="1011"]". The MSG itself is "An application event log
+ entry..." The BOM at the beginning of MSG indicates UTF-8 encoding.
+
+ Example 4 - STRUCTURED-DATA Only
+
+ <165>1 2003-10-11T22:14:15.003Z mymachine.example.com
+ evntslog - ID47 [exampleSDID@32473 iut="3" eventSource=
+ "Application" eventID="1011"][examplePriority@32473
+ class="high"]
+
+ This example shows a message with only STRUCTURED-DATA and no MSG
+ part. This is a valid message.
+
+7. Structured Data IDs
+
+ This section defines the initial IANA-registered SD-IDs. See
+ Section 6.3 for a definition of structured data elements. All SD-IDs
+ defined here are OPTIONAL.
+
+ In some of the following, a maximum length is quantified for the
+ parameter values. In each of those cases, the syslog application
+ MUST be prepared to receive the number of defined characters in any
+ valid UTF-8 code point. Since each character may be up to 6 octets,
+ it is RECOMMENDED that each syslog application be prepared to receive
+ up to 6 octets per character.
+
+7.1. timeQuality
+
+ The SD-ID "timeQuality" MAY be used by the originator to describe its
+ notion of system time. This SD-ID SHOULD be written if the
+ originator is not properly synchronized with a reliable external time
+ source or if it does not know whether its time zone information is
+
+
+
+
+
+Gerhards Standards Track [Page 20]
+
+RFC 5424 The Syslog Protocol March 2009
+
+
+ correct. The main use of this structured data element is to provide
+ some information on the level of trust it has in the TIMESTAMP
+ described in Section 6.2.3. All parameters are OPTIONAL.
+
+7.1.1. tzKnown
+
+ The "tzKnown" parameter indicates whether the originator knows its
+ time zone. If it does, the value "1" MUST be used. If the time zone
+ information is in doubt, the value "0" MUST be used. If the
+ originator knows its time zone but decides to emit time in UTC, the
+ value "1" MUST be used (because the time zone is known).
+
+7.1.2. isSynced
+
+ The "isSynced" parameter indicates whether the originator is
+ synchronized to a reliable external time source, e.g., via NTP. If
+ the originator is time synchronized, the value "1" MUST be used. If
+ not, the value "0" MUST be used.
+
+7.1.3. syncAccuracy
+
+ The "syncAccuracy" parameter indicates how accurate the originator
+ thinks its time synchronization is. It is an integer describing the
+ maximum number of microseconds that its clock may be off between
+ synchronization intervals.
+
+ If the value "0" is used for "isSynced", this parameter MUST NOT be
+ specified. If the value "1" is used for "isSynced" but the
+ "syncAccuracy" parameter is absent, a collector or relay can assume
+ that the time information provided is accurate enough to be
+ considered correct. The "syncAccuracy" parameter MUST be written
+ only if the originator actually has knowledge of the reliability of
+ the external time source. In most cases, it will gain this in-depth
+ knowledge through operator configuration.
+
+7.1.4. Examples
+
+ The following is an example of an originator that does not know its
+ time zone or whether it is being synchronized:
+
+ [timeQuality tzKnown="0" isSynced="0"]
+
+ With this information, the originator indicates that its time
+ information is unreliable. This may be a hint for the collector or
+ relay to use its local time instead of the message-provided TIMESTAMP
+ for correlation of multiple messages from different originators.
+
+
+
+
+
+Gerhards Standards Track [Page 21]
+
+RFC 5424 The Syslog Protocol March 2009
+
+
+ The following is an example of an originator that knows its time zone
+ and knows that it is properly synchronized to a reliable external
+ source:
+
+ [timeQuality tzKnown="1" isSynced="1"]
+
+ The following is an example of an originator that knows both its time
+ zone and that it is externally synchronized. It also knows the
+ accuracy of the external synchronization:
+
+ [timeQuality tzKnown="1" isSynced="1" syncAccuracy="60000000"]
+
+ The difference between this and the previous example is that the
+ originator expects that its clock will be kept within 60 seconds of
+ the official time. Thus, if the originator reports it is 9:00:00, it
+ is no earlier than 8:59:00 and no later then 9:01:00.
+
+7.2. origin
+
+ The SD-ID "origin" MAY be used to indicate the origin of a syslog
+ message. The following parameters can be used. All parameters are
+ OPTIONAL.
+
+ Specifying any of these parameters is primarily an aid to log
+ analyzers and similar applications.
+
+7.2.1. ip
+
+ The "ip" parameter denotes an IP address that the originator knows it
+ had at the time of originating the message. It MUST contain the
+ textual representation of an IP address as outlined in Section 6.2.4.
+
+ This parameter can be used to provide identifying information in
+ addition to what is present in the HOSTNAME field. It might be
+ especially useful if the host's IP address is included in the message
+ while the HOSTNAME field still contains the FQDN. It is also useful
+ for describing all IP addresses of a multihomed host.
+
+ If an originator has multiple IP addresses, it MAY either list one of
+ its IP addresses in the "ip" parameter or it MAY include multiple
+ "ip" parameters in a single "origin" structured data element.
+
+7.2.2. enterpriseId
+
+ The "enterpriseId" parameter MUST be a 'SMI Network Management
+ Private Enterprise Code', maintained by IANA, whose prefix is
+ iso.org.dod.internet.private.enterprise (1.3.6.1.4.1). The number
+ that follows MUST be unique and MUST be registered with IANA as per
+
+
+
+Gerhards Standards Track [Page 22]
+
+RFC 5424 The Syslog Protocol March 2009
+
+
+ RFC 2578 [RFC2578]. An enterprise is only authorized to assign
+ values within the iso.org.dod.internet.private.enterprise.<private
+ enterprise number> subtree assigned by IANA to that enterprise. The
+ enterpriseId MUST contain only a value from the
+ iso.org.dod.internet.private.enterprise.<private enterprise number>
+ subtree. In general, only the IANA-assigned private enterprise
+ number is needed (a single number). An enterprise might decide to
+ use sub-identifiers below its private enterprise number. If sub-
+ identifiers are used, they MUST be separated by periods and be
+ represented as decimal numbers. An example for that would be
+ "32473.1.2". Please note that the ID "32473.1.2" is just an example
+ and MUST NOT be used. The complete up-to-date list of Private
+ Enterprise Numbers (PEN) is maintained by IANA.
+
+ By specifying a private enterprise number, the vendor allows more
+ specific processing of the message.
+
+7.2.3. software
+
+ The "software" parameter uniquely identifies the software that
+ generated the message. If it is used, "enterpriseId" SHOULD also be
+ specified, so that a specific vendor's software can be identified.
+ The "software" parameter is not the same as the APP-NAME header
+ field. It MUST always contain the name of the generating software,
+ whereas APP-NAME can contain anything else, including an operator-
+ configured value.
+
+ The "software" parameter is a string. It MUST NOT be longer than 48
+ characters.
+
+7.2.4. swVersion
+
+ The "swVersion" parameter uniquely identifies the version of the
+ software that generated the message. If it is used, the "software"
+ and "enterpriseId" parameters SHOULD be provided, too.
+
+ The "swVersion" parameter is a string. It MUST NOT be longer than 32
+ characters.
+
+7.2.5. Example
+
+ The following is an example with multiple IP addresses:
+
+ [origin ip="192.0.2.1" ip="192.0.2.129"]
+
+ In this example, the originator indicates that it has two IP
+ addresses, one being 192.0.2.1 and the other one being 192.0.2.129.
+
+
+
+
+Gerhards Standards Track [Page 23]
+
+RFC 5424 The Syslog Protocol March 2009
+
+
+7.3. meta
+
+ The SD-ID "meta" MAY be used to provide meta-information about the
+ message. The following parameters can be used. All parameters are
+ OPTIONAL. If the "meta" SD-ID is used, at least one parameter SHOULD
+ be specified.
+
+7.3.1. sequenceId
+
+ The "sequenceId" parameter tracks the sequence in which the
+ originator submits messages to the syslog transport for sending. It
+ is an integer that MUST be set to 1 when the syslog function is
+ started and MUST be increased with every message up to a maximum
+ value of 2147483647. If that value is reached, the next message MUST
+ be sent with a sequenceId of 1.
+
+7.3.2. sysUpTime
+
+ The "sysUpTime" parameter MAY be used to include the SNMP "sysUpTime"
+ parameter in the message. Its syntax and semantics are as defined in
+ [RFC3418].
+
+ As syslog does not support the SNMP "INTEGER" syntax directly, the
+ value MUST be represented as a decimal integer (no decimal point)
+ using only the characters "0", "1", "2", "3", "4", "5", "6", "7",
+ "8", and "9".
+
+ Note that the semantics in RFC 3418 are "The time (in hundredths of a
+ second) since the network management portion of the system was last
+ re-initialized." This of course relates to the SNMP-related
+ management portion of the system, which MAY be different than the
+ syslog-related management portion of the system.
+
+7.3.3. language
+
+ The "language" parameter MAY be specified by the originator to convey
+ information about the natural language used inside MSG. If it is
+ specified, it MUST contain a language identifier as defined in BCP 47
+ [RFC4646].
+
+8. Security Considerations
+
+8.1. UNICODE
+
+ This document uses UTF-8 encoding for the PARAM-VALUE and MSG fields.
+ There are a number of security issues with UNICODE. Any implementer
+ and operator is advised to review UNICODE TR36 [UNICODE-TR36] (UTR36)
+ to learn about these issues. This document guards against the
+
+
+
+Gerhards Standards Track [Page 24]
+
+RFC 5424 The Syslog Protocol March 2009
+
+
+ technical issues outlined in UTR36 by REQUIRING "shortest form"
+ encoding for syslog applications. However, the visual spoofing due
+ to character confusion still persists. This document tries to
+ minimize the effects of visual spoofing by allowing UNICODE only
+ where local script is expected and needed. In all other fields,
+ US-ASCII is REQUIRED. Also, the PARAM-VALUE and MSG fields should
+ not be the primary source for identifying information, further
+ reducing the risks associated with visual spoofing.
+
+8.2. Control Characters
+
+ This document does not impose any mandatory restrictions on the MSG
+ or PARAM-VALUE content. As such, they MAY contain control
+ characters, including the NUL character.
+
+ In some programming languages (most notably C and C++), the NUL
+ character (ABNF %d00) traditionally has a special significance as
+ string terminator. Most implementations of these languages assume
+ that a string will not extend beyond the first NUL character. This
+ is primarily a restriction of the supporting run-time libraries.
+ This restriction is often carried over to programs and script
+ languages written in those languages. As such, NUL characters must
+ be considered with great care and be properly handled. An attacker
+ may deliberately include NUL characters to hide information after
+ them. Incorrect handling of the NUL character may also invalidate
+ cryptographic checksums that are transmitted inside the message.
+
+ Many popular text editors are also written in languages with this
+ restriction. Encoding NUL characters when writing to text files is
+ advisable. If they are stored without encoding, the file can become
+ unreadable.
+
+ Other control characters may also be problematic. For example, an
+ attacker may deliberately include backspace characters to render
+ parts of the log message unreadable. Similar issues exist for almost
+ all control characters.
+
+ Finally, invalid UTF-8 sequences may be used by an attacker to inject
+ ASCII control characters.
+
+ This specification permits a syslog application to reformat control
+ characters received. Among others, the security risks associated
+ with control characters were an important driving force behind this
+ restriction. Originators are advised that if any encoding other than
+ ASCII and UTF8 are used, the receiver may corrupt the message in an
+ attempt to filter ASCII control characters.
+
+
+
+
+
+Gerhards Standards Track [Page 25]
+
+RFC 5424 The Syslog Protocol March 2009
+
+
+8.3. Message Truncation
+
+ Message truncation can be misused by an attacker to hide vital log
+ information. Messages over the minimum supported size may be
+ discarded or truncated by the transport receiver. As such, vital log
+ information may be lost.
+
+ In order to prevent information loss, messages should not be longer
+ than the minimum maximum size required by Section 6.1. For best
+ performance and reliability, messages should be as small as possible.
+ Important information should be placed as early in the message as
+ possible because information at the beginning of the message is less
+ likely to be discarded by a size-limited transport receiver.
+
+ An originator should limit the size of any user-supplied data within
+ a syslog message. If it does not, an attacker may provide large data
+ in hopes of exploiting a potential weakness.
+
+8.4. Replay
+
+ There is no mechanism in the syslog protocol to detect message
+ replay. An attacker may record a set of messages that indicate
+ normal activity of a machine. At a later time, that attacker may
+ remove that machine from the network and replay the syslog messages
+ to the relay or collector. Even with the TIMESTAMP field in the
+ HEADER part, an attacker may record the packets and could simply
+ modify them to reflect the current time before retransmitting them.
+ The administrators may find nothing unusual in the received messages,
+ and their receipt would falsely indicate normal activity of the
+ machine.
+
+ Cryptographically signing messages could prevent the alteration of
+ TIMESTAMPs and thus the replay attack.
+
+8.5. Reliable Delivery
+
+ Because there is no mechanism described within this document to
+ ensure delivery, and the underlying transport may be unreliable
+ (e.g., UDP), some messages may be lost. They may either be dropped
+ through network congestion, or they may be maliciously intercepted
+ and discarded. The consequences of dropping one or more syslog
+ messages cannot be determined. If the messages are simple status
+ updates, then their non-receipt may not be noticed or may cause an
+ annoyance for the system operators. On the other hand, if the
+ messages are more critical, then the administrators may not become
+ aware of a developing and potentially serious problem. Messages may
+ also be intercepted and discarded by an attacker as a way to hide
+ unauthorized activities.
+
+
+
+Gerhards Standards Track [Page 26]
+
+RFC 5424 The Syslog Protocol March 2009
+
+
+ It may also be desirable to include rate-limiting features in syslog
+ originators and relays. This can reduce potential congestion
+ problems when message bursts happen.
+
+ Reliable delivery may not always be desirable. Reliable delivery
+ means that the syslog originator or relay must block when the relay
+ or collector is not able to accept any more messages. In some
+ operating systems, namely Unix/Linux, the syslog originator or relay
+ runs inside a high-priority system process (syslogd). If that
+ process blocks, the system at large comes to a stand-still. The same
+ occurs if there is a deadlock situation between syslogd and e.g., the
+ DNS server.
+
+ To prevent these problems, reliable delivery can be implemented in a
+ way that intentionally discards messages when the syslog application
+ would otherwise block. The advantage of reliable delivery in this
+ case is that the syslog originator or relay knowingly discards the
+ message and is able to notify the relay or collector about that fact.
+ So the relay or collector receives the information that something is
+ lost. With unreliable delivery, the message would simply be lost
+ without any indication that loss occurred.
+
+8.6. Congestion Control
+
+ Because syslog can generate unlimited amounts of data, transferring
+ this data over UDP is generally problematic, because UDP lacks
+ congestion control mechanisms. Congestion control mechanisms that
+ respond to congestion by reducing traffic rates and establish a
+ degree of fairness between flows that share the same path are vital
+ to the stable operation of the Internet [RFC2914]. This is why the
+ syslog TLS transport is REQUIRED to implement and RECOMMENDED for
+ general use.
+
+ The only environments where the syslog UDP transport MAY be used as
+ an alternative to the TLS transport are managed networks, where the
+ network path has been explicitly provisioned for UDP syslog traffic
+ through traffic engineering mechanisms, such as rate limiting or
+ capacity reservations. In all other environments, the TLS transport
+ SHOULD be used.
+
+ In any implementation, the situation may arise in which an originator
+ or relay would need to block sending messages. A common case is when
+ an internal queue is full. This might happen due to rate-limiting or
+ slow performance of the syslog application. In any event, it is
+ highly RECOMMENDED that no messages be dropped but that they should
+ be temporarily stored until they can be transmitted. However, if
+ they must be dropped, it is RECOMMENDED that the originator or relay
+ drop messages of lower severity in favor of higher severity messages.
+
+
+
+Gerhards Standards Track [Page 27]
+
+RFC 5424 The Syslog Protocol March 2009
+
+
+ Messages with a lower numerical SEVERITY value have a higher
+ practical severity than those with a numerically higher value. In
+ that situation, the messages that are to be dropped SHOULD simply be
+ discarded. The syslog application may notify a collector or relay
+ about the fact that it has dropped messages.
+
+8.7. Message Integrity
+
+ Besides being discarded, syslog messages may be damaged in transit,
+ or an attacker may maliciously modify them. In such cases, the
+ original contents of the message will not be delivered to the
+ collector or relay. Additionally, if an attacker is positioned
+ between the transport sender and transport receiver of syslog
+ messages, they may be able to intercept and modify those messages
+ while in-transit to hide unauthorized activities.
+
+8.8. Message Observation
+
+ While there are no strict guidelines pertaining to the MSG format,
+ most syslog messages are generated in human-readable form with the
+ assumption that capable administrators should be able to read them
+ and understand their meaning. The syslog protocol does not have
+ mechanisms to provide confidentiality for the messages in transit.
+ In most cases, passing clear-text messages is a benefit to the
+ operations staff if they are sniffing the packets from the wire. The
+ operations staff may be able to read the messages and associate them
+ with other events seen from other packets crossing the wire to track
+ down and correct problems. Unfortunately, an attacker may also be
+ able to observe the human-readable contents of syslog messages. The
+ attacker may then use the knowledge gained from those messages to
+ compromise a machine or do other damage.
+
+ Operators are advised to use a secure transport mapping to avoid this
+ problem.
+
+8.9. Inappropriate Configuration
+
+ Because there is no control information distributed about any
+ messages or configurations, it is wholly the responsibility of the
+ network administrator to ensure that the messages are actually going
+ to the intended recipients. Cases have been noted where syslog
+ applications were inadvertently configured to send syslog messages to
+ the wrong relays or collectors. In many cases, the inadvertent
+ relays or collectors may not be configured to receive syslog messages
+ and will probably discard them. In certain other cases, the receipt
+ of syslog messages has been known to cause problems for the
+ unintended recipient. If messages are not going to the intended
+ recipient, then they cannot be reviewed or processed.
+
+
+
+Gerhards Standards Track [Page 28]
+
+RFC 5424 The Syslog Protocol March 2009
+
+
+ Using a reliable transport mapping can help identify some of these
+ problems. For example, it can identify a problem where a message is
+ being sent to a system that is not configured to receive messages.
+ It cannot identify sending messages to a wrong machine that is
+ accepting messages.
+
+8.10. Forwarding Loop
+
+ As shown in Diagram 2, machines may be configured to relay syslog
+ messages to subsequent relays before reaching a collector. In one
+ particular case, an administrator found that he had mistakenly
+ configured two relays to forward messages with certain SEVERITY
+ values to each other. When either of these machines either received
+ or generated that type of message, it would forward it to the other
+ relay. That relay would, in turn, forward it back. This cycle did
+ cause degradation to the intervening network as well as to the
+ processing availability on the two devices. Network administrators
+ must take care not to cause such a death spiral.
+
+8.11. Load Considerations
+
+ Network administrators must take the time to estimate the appropriate
+ capacity of the syslog collector. An attacker may perform a Denial
+ of Service attack by filling the disk of the collector with false
+ messages. Placing the records in a circular file may alleviate this
+ but has the consequence of not ensuring that an administrator will be
+ able to review the records in the future. Along this line, a
+ transport receiver must have a network interface capable of receiving
+ the messages sent to it.
+
+ Administrators and network planners must also critically review the
+ network paths between the originators, the relays, and the
+ collectors. Generated syslog messages should not overwhelm any of
+ the network links.
+
+ In order to reduce the impact of this issue, using transports with
+ guaranteed delivery is recommended.
+
+8.12. Denial of Service
+
+ As with any system, an attacker may just overwhelm a transport
+ receiver by sending more messages to it than can be handled by the
+ infrastructure or the device itself. Implementers should attempt to
+ provide features that minimize this threat, such as only accepting
+ syslog messages from known IP addresses.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Gerhards Standards Track [Page 29]
+
+RFC 5424 The Syslog Protocol March 2009
+
+
+9. IANA Considerations
+
+9.1. VERSION
+
+ IANA has created a registry entitled "syslog Version Values" of
+ VERSION values as described in Section 6.2.2. Version numbers MUST
+ be incremented for any new syslog protocol specification that changes
+ any part of the HEADER. Changes include addition or removal of
+ fields or a change of syntax or semantics of existing fields.
+
+ VERSION numbers must be registered via the Standards Action method as
+ described in [RFC5226]. IANA has registered the VERSIONs shown in
+ Table 3 below.
+
+ VERSION FORMAT
+ 1 Defined in [RFC5424]
+
+ Table 3. IANA-Registered VERSIONs
+
+9.2. SD-IDs
+
+ IANA has created a registry entitled "syslog Structured Data ID
+ Values" of Structured Data ID (SD-ID) values together with their
+ associated PARAM-NAME values as described in Section 7.
+
+ New SD-ID and new PARAM-NAME values must be registered through the
+ IETF Review method as described in [RFC5226].
+
+ Once SD-IDs and SD-PARAMs are defined, syntax and semantics of these
+ objects MUST NOT be altered. Should a change to an existing object
+ be desired, a new SD-ID or SD-PARAM MUST be created and the old one
+ remain unchanged.
+
+ A provision is made here for locally extensible names. The IANA will
+ not register, and will not control names with the at-sign (ABNF %d64)
+ in them.
+
+ IANA has registered the SD-IDs and PARAM-NAMEs shown in Table 4
+ below.
+
+ SD-ID PARAM-NAME
+ timeQuality OPTIONAL
+ tzKnown OPTIONAL
+ isSynced OPTIONAL
+ syncAccuracy OPTIONAL
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Gerhards Standards Track [Page 30]
+
+RFC 5424 The Syslog Protocol March 2009
+
+
+ origin OPTIONAL
+ ip OPTIONAL
+ enterpriseId OPTIONAL
+ software OPTIONAL
+ swVersion OPTIONAL
+
+ meta OPTIONAL
+ sequenceId OPTIONAL
+ sysUpTime OPTIONAL
+ language OPTIONAL
+
+ Table 4. IANA-Registered SD-IDs and their PARAM-NAMEs
+
+10. Working Group
+
+ The working group can be contacted via the mailing list:
+
+ syslog@ietf.org
+
+ The current Chairs of the Working Group may be contacted at:
+
+ Chris Lonvick
+ Cisco Systems
+ EMail: clonvick@cisco.com
+
+ David Harrington
+ Huawei Technologies USA
+ EMail: dbharrington@comcast.net
+
+11. Acknowledgments
+
+ The authors wish to thank Chris Lonvick, Jon Callas, Andrew Ross,
+ Albert Mietus, Anton Okmianski, Tina Bird, Devin Kowatch, David
+ Harrington, Sharon Chisholm, Richard Graveman, Tom Petch, Dado
+ Colussi, Clement Mathieu, Didier Dalmasso, and all the other people
+ who commented on various versions of this proposal.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Gerhards Standards Track [Page 31]
+
+RFC 5424 The Syslog Protocol March 2009
+
+
+12. References
+
+12.1. Normative References
+
+ [ANSI.X3-4.1968] American National Standards Institute, "USA Code
+ for Information Interchange", ANSI X3.4, 1968.
+
+ [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and
+ facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
+
+ [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
+ specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
+
+ [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+ Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+ [RFC2578] McCloghrie, K., Ed., Perkins, D., Ed., and J.
+ Schoenwaelder, Ed., "Structure of Management
+ Information Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC 2578,
+ April 1999.
+
+ [RFC2914] Floyd, S., "Congestion Control Principles", BCP 41,
+ RFC 2914, September 2000.
+
+ [RFC3339] Klyne, G., Ed. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the
+ Internet: Timestamps", RFC 3339, July 2002.
+
+ [RFC3418] Presuhn, R., "Management Information Base (MIB) for
+ the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)",
+ STD 62, RFC 3418, December 2002.
+
+ [RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
+ 10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.
+
+ [RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
+ Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.
+
+ [RFC4646] Phillips, A. and M. Davis, "Tags for Identifying
+ Languages", BCP 47, RFC 4646, September 2006.
+
+ [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for
+ Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs",
+ BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008.
+
+ [RFC5234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for
+ Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
+ January 2008.
+
+
+
+
+Gerhards Standards Track [Page 32]
+
+RFC 5424 The Syslog Protocol March 2009
+
+
+ [RFC5425] Fuyou, M., Yuzhi, M., and J. Salowey, "TLS
+ Transport Mapping for Syslog", RFC 5425, March
+ 2009.
+
+ [RFC5426] Okmianski, A., "Transmission of Syslog Messages
+ over UDP", RFC 5426, March 2009.
+
+ [UNICODE-TR36] Davis, M. and M. Suignard, "UNICODE Security
+ Considerations", July 2005.
+
+12.2. Informative References
+
+ [RFC3164] Lonvick, C., "The BSD Syslog Protocol", RFC 3164,
+ August 2001.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Gerhards Standards Track [Page 33]
+
+RFC 5424 The Syslog Protocol March 2009
+
+
+Appendix A. Implementer Guidelines
+
+ Information in this section is given as an aid to implementers.
+ While this information is considered to be helpful, it is not
+ normative. As such, an implementation is NOT REQUIRED to follow it
+ in order to claim compliance to this specification.
+
+A.1. Relationship with BSD Syslog
+
+ While BSD syslog is in widespread use, its format has never been
+ formally standardized. [RFC3164] describes observed formats. It is
+ an Informational RFC, and practice shows that there are many
+ different implementations. Research during creation of this document
+ showed that there is very little in common between different syslog
+ implementations on different platforms. The only thing that all of
+ them agree upon is that messages start with "<" PRIVAL ">". Other
+ than that, legacy syslog messages are not formatted in a consistent
+ way. Consequently, RFC 3164 describes no specific elements inside a
+ syslog message. It states that any message destined to the syslog
+ UDP port must be treated as a syslog message, no matter what its
+ format or content is.
+
+ This document retains the PRI value syntax and semantics. This will
+ allow legacy syslog implementations to put messages generated by
+ syslog applications compliant to this specification into the right
+ bins.
+
+ Most existing implementations support UDP as the transport protocol
+ for syslog. This specification supports UDP transport, but does not
+ recommend it. Deployment of the required TLS support is recommended.
+ Additional transport protocols may be used.
+
+ RFC 3164 describes relay behavior. This document does not specify
+ relay behavior. This might be done in a separate document.
+
+ The TIMESTAMP described in RFC 3164 offers less precision than the
+ timestamp specified in this document. It also lacks the year and
+ time zone information. If a message formatted according to this
+ document needs to be reformatted to be in RFC 3164 format, it is
+ suggested that the originator's local time zone be used, and the time
+ zone information and the year be dropped. If an RFC 3164 formatted
+ message is received and must be transformed to be compliant to this
+ document, the current year should be added and the time zone of the
+ relay or collector MAY be used.
+
+ The HOSTNAME in RFC 3164 is less specific, but this format is still
+ supported in this document as one of the alternate HOSTNAME
+ representations.
+
+
+
+Gerhards Standards Track [Page 34]
+
+RFC 5424 The Syslog Protocol March 2009
+
+
+ The MSG part of the message is described as TAG and CONTENT in RFC
+ 3164. In this document, MSG is what was called CONTENT in RFC 3164.
+ The TAG is now part of the header, but not as a single field. The
+ TAG has been split into APP-NAME, PROCID, and MSGID. This does not
+ totally resemble the usage of TAG, but provides the same
+ functionality for most of the cases.
+
+ In RFC 3164, STRUCTURED-DATA was not described. If a message
+ compliant with this document contains STRUCTURED-DATA and must be
+ reformatted according to RFC 3164, the STRUCTURED-DATA simply becomes
+ part of the RFC 3164 CONTENT free-form text.
+
+ In general, this document tries to provide an easily parseable header
+ with clear field separations, whereas traditional BSD syslog suffers
+ from some historically developed, hard to parse field separation
+ rules.
+
+A.2. Message Length
+
+ Implementers should note the message size limitations outlined in
+ Section 6.1 and try to keep the most important data early in the
+ message (within the minimum guaranteed length). This ensures the
+ data will be seen by the collector or relay even if a transport
+ receiver at a relay on the message path truncates the message.
+
+ The reason syslog transport receivers need only support receiving up
+ to and including 480 octets has, among other things, to do with
+ difficult delivery problems in a broken network. Syslog messages may
+ use a UDP transport mapping with this 480 octet restriction to avoid
+ session overhead and message fragmentation. In a network with
+ problems, the likelihood of getting one single-packet message
+ delivered successfully is higher than getting two message fragments
+ delivered successfully. Therefore, using a larger size may prevent
+ the operator from getting some critical information about the
+ problem, whereas using small messages might get that information to
+ the operator. It is recommended that messages intended for
+ troubleshooting purposes should not be larger than 480 octets. To
+ further strengthen this point, it has also been observed that some
+ UDP implementations generally do not support message sizes of more
+ than 480 octets. This behavior is very rare and may no longer be an
+ issue.
+
+ There are other use cases where syslog messages are used to transmit
+ inherently lengthy information, e.g., audit data. By not enforcing
+ any upper limit on the message size, syslog applications can be
+ implemented with any size needed and still be compliant with this
+ document. In such cases, it is the operator's responsibility to
+
+
+
+
+Gerhards Standards Track [Page 35]
+
+RFC 5424 The Syslog Protocol March 2009
+
+
+ ensure that all components in a syslog infrastructure support the
+ required message sizes. Transport mappings may recommend specific
+ message size limits that must be implemented to be compliant.
+
+ Implementers are reminded that the message length is specified in
+ octets. There is a potentially large difference between the length
+ in characters and the length in octets for UTF-8 strings.
+
+ It must be noted that the IPv6 MTU is about 2.5 times 480. An
+ implementation targeted towards an IPv6-only environment might thus
+ assume this as a larger minimum size.
+
+A.3. Severity Values
+
+ This section describes guidelines for using Severity as outlined in
+ Section 6.2.1.
+
+ All implementations should try to assign the most appropriate
+ severity to their message. Most importantly, messages designed to
+ enable debugging or testing of software should be assigned Severity
+ 7. Severity 0 should be reserved for messages of very high
+ importance (like serious hardware failures or imminent power
+ failure). An implementation may use Severities 0 and 7 for other
+ purposes if this is configured by the administrator.
+
+ Because severities are very subjective, a relay or collector should
+ not assume that all originators have the same definition of severity.
+
+A.4. TIME-SECFRAC Precision
+
+ The TIMESTAMP described in Section 6.2.3 supports fractional seconds.
+ This provides grounds for a very common coding error, where leading
+ zeros are removed from the fractional seconds. For example, the
+ TIMESTAMP "2003-10-11T22:13:14.003" may be erroneously written as
+ "2003-10-11T22:13:14.3". This would indicate 300 milliseconds
+ instead of the 3 milliseconds actually meant.
+
+A.5. Case Convention for Names
+
+ Names are used at various places in this document, for example for
+ SD-IDs and PARAM-NAMEs. This document uses "lower camel case"
+ consistently. With that, each name begins with a lower case letter
+ and each new embedded word starts with an upper case letter, with no
+ hyphen or other delimiter. An example of this is "timeQuality".
+
+ While an implementation is free to use any other case convention for
+ experimental names, it is suggested that the case convention outlined
+ above is followed.
+
+
+
+Gerhards Standards Track [Page 36]
+
+RFC 5424 The Syslog Protocol March 2009
+
+
+A.6. Syslog Applications Without Knowledge of Time
+
+ In Section 6.2.3, the NILVALUE has been allowed for usage by
+ originators without knowledge of time. This is done to support a
+ special case when a syslog application is not aware of time at all.
+ It can be argued whether such a syslog application can actually be
+ found in today's IT infrastructure. However, discussion has
+ indicated that those things may exist in practice and as such there
+ should be a guideline established for this case.
+
+ However, an implementation SHOULD emit a valid TIMESTAMP if the
+ underlying operating system, programming system, and hardware
+ supports a clock function. A proper TIMESTAMP should be emitted even
+ if it is difficult to obtain the system time. The NILVALUE should
+ only be used when it is actually impossible to obtain time
+ information. This rule should not be used as an excuse for lazy
+ implementations.
+
+A.7. Notes on the timeQuality SD-ID
+
+ It is recommended that the value of "0" be the default for the
+ "tzKnown" (Section 7.1.1) parameter. It should only be changed to
+ "1" after the administrator has specifically configured the time
+ zone. The value "1" may be used as the default if the underlying
+ operating system provides accurate time zone information. It is
+ still advised that the administrator consider the correctness of the
+ time zone information.
+
+ It is important not to create a false impression of accuracy with the
+ timeQuality SD-ID (Section 7.1). An originator should only indicate
+ a given accuracy if it actually knows it is within these bounds. It
+ is generally assumed that the originator gains this in-depth
+ knowledge through operator configuration. By default, an accuracy
+ should not be provided.
+
+A.8. UTF-8 Encoding and the BOM
+
+ This document specifies that SD-PARAMS must always be encoded in
+ UTF-8. Other encodings of the message in the MSG portion, including
+ ASCIIPRINT, are not permitted by a device conforming to this
+ specification. There are two cases that need to be addressed here.
+ First, a syslog application conforming to this specification may not
+ be able to ascertain that the information given to it from an
+ originator is encoded in UTF-8. If it cannot determine that with
+ certainty, the syslog application may choose to not incorporate the
+ BOM in the MSG. If the syslog application has a good indication that
+ the content of the message is encoded in UTF-8, then it should
+ include the BOM. In the second case, a syslog relay may be
+
+
+
+Gerhards Standards Track [Page 37]
+
+RFC 5424 The Syslog Protocol March 2009
+
+
+ forwarding a message from a device that does not conform to this
+ specification. In that case, the device would likely not include the
+ BOM unless it has ascertained that the received message was encoded
+ in UTF-8.
+
+Author's Address
+
+ Rainer Gerhards
+ Adiscon GmbH
+ Mozartstrasse 21
+ Grossrinderfeld, BW 97950
+ Germany
+
+ EMail: rgerhards@adiscon.com
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Gerhards Standards Track [Page 38]
+