chore: rfc-compliance §6.3.3 row Supported, drop SD-NAME digression

[DavidCozens]

Summary

The §6.3.3 SD-PARAM value escaping row had a Partial status because the note carried a "SD-NAME syntax validation not yet enforced — E14" digression that conflated two different concerns:

• The row's title is value escaping (", \, ]) — fully done via SolidSyslogFormatter_EscapedString. OriginSd routes software, swVersion, enterpriseId, and each ip through it; MetaSd's language callback wraps the same primitive.
• SD-NAME / SD-ID syntax validation is a separate concern that only matters once callers can supply names. The three standard SDs (meta / timeQuality / origin) use compile-time-constant names, so validation protects nothing in E07's surface. Caller-supplied names arrive with E14 (E14: Custom Structured Data #64) (Custom Structured Data) where the primitive will be adopted at SD Create time.

Drop the digression, flip Partial → Supported, reword the E14 reference as a forward-looking pointer rather than a Partial-blocker.

Summary table updated: RFC 5424 16/1 → 17/0 (Supported/Partial). With this change E07 has zero outstanding rows in the compliance matrix and the epic can close.

Test plan

• CI green (docs-only change, no code paths exercised)
• Markdown renders correctly (manually verified the diff)

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Updated RFC 5424 compliance documentation to reflect improved support status for structured-data parameter escaping
  • Refined notes clarifying validation scope for custom structured-data versus built-in structured data
  • Compliance metrics improved: fully supported RFC 5424 features increased from 16 to 17

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 7859aa65-4561-4db4-b9cd-fc9a43276c6a

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between e904e95 and 91043a0.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• docs/rfc-compliance.md

---

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

Documentation update to RFC 5424 compliance matrix marks §6.3.3 SD-PARAM escaping as fully "Supported" instead of "Partial", refines escaping notes clarifying that validation applies only to custom structured-data with caller-supplied names, and increments supported compliance count from 16 to 17.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
RFC Compliance Documentation docs/rfc-compliance.md	Updated RFC 5424 §6.3.3 SD-PARAM escaping compliance status from Partial to Supported; refined notes to clarify SD-NAME/SD-ID syntax validation scope; incremented Supported count to 17, Partial count to 0.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~2 minutes

Possibly related PRs

• PR #226: Modifies the same RFC 5424 §6.3.3 SD-PARAM escaping compliance rows in opposite directions.
• PR #228: Updates the same RFC compliance matrix for meta structured-data (sequenceId/sysUpTime/language) support.
• PR #202: Implements the PARAM-VALUE escaping behavior that this documentation update reflects (EscapedString and SD-PARAM sizing).

Poem

🐰 The compliance checklist hops with glee,
SD-PARAM escaping now set free!
From Partial to full, the matrix sings,
Built-in names and custom things—
All supported, all in sight! ✨

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4 | ❌ 1

❌ Failed checks (1 inconclusive)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Description check	❓ Inconclusive	The description provides clear context and reasoning but is missing several required sections from the template: Purpose lacks an issue/requirement link, Test Evidence section is missing actual test details, and Areas Affected is not addressed.	Add Purpose section linking to E07 epic closure, expand Test Evidence with actual test results, and document Areas Affected (RFC compliance documentation and epic closure).

✅ Passed checks (4 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly describes the main change: updating the RFC 5424 §6.3.3 row status to Supported and removing the SD-NAME syntax validation digression.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch chore/rfc-compliance-sd-name-cleanup

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Review rate limit: 0/1 reviews remaining, refill in 60 minutes.}

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[github-actions]

☀️   Quality Summary

   🚦   build-linux-gcc: 100% successful (✔️ 952 passed, 🙈 3 skipped)
   🚦   build-linux-clang: 100% successful (✔️ 901 passed, 🙈 3 skipped)
   🚦   sanitize-linux-gcc: 100% successful (✔️ 901 passed, 🙈 3 skipped)
   🚦   integration-linux-openssl: 100% successful (✔️ 9 passed)
   🚦   bdd-linux-syslog-ng: 100% successful (✔️ 42 passed)
   🚦   bdd-windows-otel: 62% successful (✔️ 26 passed, 🙈 16 skipped)
   🚦   build-windows-msvc: 100% successful (✔️ 814 passed, 🙈 1 skipped)
   ⚠️   Clang-Tidy: No warnings
   ⚠️   CPPCheck: No warnings

---

Created by Quality Monitor v1.14.0 (#f3859fd). More details are shown in the GitHub Checks Result.