I really don't give a damn when IETF starts telling us what content to
place into FILES.  syslog files are not Internet.  That kind of interop
is outside their mandate, and likely snuck onto the pages before most of
you were born, likely to avoid the pages looking short and stark. This
mandate-seeking does not come from IETF participants so it comes off as
ridiciulous, and I reject it.  Having non-IETF participants expressing
belief that IETF is an "authoritity" here is bizzare.  Defending such
old words is simply indefensible.

Slightly on a tangent, IETF also is incapable of growing up and adapting
to recognition the world needs something better, and when that
recognition surfaces the IETF does they have *NO VIABLE PROCESS* to
adapt.  Austin Group is somewhat similar (often rejects common practice,
then argues in circles about modifying with incompatible behaviour
before agreeing to it, or these days simply tries invent stuf noone will
put into their OS). If IETF had been around when filenames were limited
to 14 characters, someone could have considered that limitation a sign
of purity, designed it into some aspect of some spec, and today we might
have people who would flip that history into an belief that longer
filenames are not IETF approved due some outdated RFC.  Oh the good old
days when we considered those graybeards more than gods.  I don't. They
operated with strong validity with that timeline, but times do change.

What use is a modern machine with huge disk space, available in more
than 2 continents, if you can't store timezone insensitive, with
accurate and increasingly precise timestamps?  I dunno.  Maybe that
machine was intended to run some commercial operating system which
widely ignores the little details in IETF standards?  Who hold us to
a stronger silly standard?