Friday, April 20, 2012

RFC5424 or cee-enhanced syslog?

I  recently got a question if it would be better to implement RFC5424 or cee-enhanced syslog in a new project. This sounds like a though question, but looking at the details helps to ease it a bit.

First of all, RFC5424 has a far broader scope than cee-enhanced syslog. RFC5424 is the base RFC of a new series of syslog RFCs that solve many problems, among them (this list for sure will not be complete):

  • finally a standardized syslog format (no standard exists before, just a weak understanding)
  • supports multiple transports, e.g. UDP and TLS (all in their own RFCs)
  • solves some long-standing nits, like the date format (RFC5424 supports high precision and demands a year as part of the timestamp)
  • increases the syslog message size and permits operators to set an (almost) arbitrary upper limit for message sizes
  • supports structured logging via so-called "structured data"
In contrast, cee-enhanced syslog only cares about the structured logging feature - none of the others is addressed with it. This is the case because its intent is different: the goal here is to have a format that can work with existing technology and still provide the best possible structured logging solution. Depending on circumstances, "best possible" can be quite different. For example, in a scenario where it needs to work with crufty old syslogds, it can mean that message content can not be longer than 1k, a serious restriction. Even more, it is envisioned that cee-enhanced syslog will also work over non-syslog transport, and may even be transported by simply copying (and merging) files.

CEE has long thought about using RFC5424 structured data format for its structured logging needs. However, that would have limited its ability to work with all these older (and deployed) syslog implementations. Thus, the decision was made to use text that purely resides inside the message part and, without transformation, can be used in legacy systems (with given restrictions, of course).

So now back to the question: what to implement? With this facts, I think it boils down to "both". To use the benefits of modern-day syslog (as described above), you definitely need to implement RFC5424 and its helper RFCs (like 5425 for TLS). HOWEVER, the question remains if one should use structured data or cee-enhanced syslog. This, I have to admit, is indeed a though question.

My personal opinion, which can be totally wrong and is solely based on my experience (aka "gut feeling" ;)), cee-enhanced syslog sounds more promising for structured data. The main reason for this is that the format has received very good responses from major players and a lot of work is currently being done by a lot of folks driving important projects in the logging environment. There is also a lot of supporting libraries upcoming AND some of them already available. Most importantly, this effort is thightly integrated with Mitre and  it probably is not to far-fetched to assume that cee-enhanced syslog will appear on some purchasing checklists in the not so distant future. RFC5424 structured data does not have this broad backing. So while cee-enhanced syslog is a very fresh project, my personal assumption is that it will take off.

But again, that does not mean that RFC5424 shall not be implemented. I think RFC5424 technology is vital for a number of reasons. Of course, things like TLS can also be obtained without RFC5424, but not in a standards-compliant way. So to ensure interoperability, going the 5424 way is a good idea.

2 comments:

Gurgaonflowerplaza said...

Lovely…
Gurgaonflowerplaza.com

reginag said...

The whole system fairly works good. But need more enhancement.
peoria fire systems

Busy at the moment...

Some might have noticed that I am not as active as usual on the rsyslog project . As this seems to turn out to keep at least for the upcomi...