You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Mar 18, 2019. It is now read-only.
The way I see it, a tag is specified in the Dial 'constructor' and used for both the tag and msgid fields for RFC3164 and RFC5424 msg formats respectively. This is fine for RFC3164 because the tag doesn't typically change from message to message. But for RFC5424, the msgid should likely change, based on the msg type.
The way I see it, a tag is specified in the
Dial
'constructor' and used for both thetag
andmsgid
fields for RFC3164 and RFC5424 msg formats respectively. This is fine for RFC3164 because thetag
doesn't typically change from message to message. But for RFC5424, the msgid should likely change, based on the msg type.RFC5424 detailing MSGID: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5424#section-6.2.7
I'm looking for consensus that this should be considered a 'defect', then I can put my thinking cap on regarding solutions.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: