Subject: Re: [netmod] syslog-model-03: Severity enum values vs identity

From: "Clyde Wildes (cwildes)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 19:55:36 +0000

Jason,

As Juergen noted, there are no plans to remove enum from the YANG language.

The severity is constrained to the specification from RFC 5424 page 10, Table 2 and IMO should remain an enum:

          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

We will clarify the term "increasing severity" in the next draft.

Thanks

Clyde

From: <Sterne>, "Jason (Jason)"
Date: Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 5:27 PM
To: "[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>"
Subject: [netmod] syslog-model-03: Severity enum values vs identity

Hi all,

Should we consider removing the enum values (if we want to keep this as an enum) ?  Those are values that are only visible when they are used to encode severity when sending to a remote syslog receiver and I'm not sure if those should really be in the config model. There has also been some debate about the use of enum values in general in netmod (considered removing that from the YANG language altogether).

It may also be useful to change the severity enum to a set of identities.  That leaves it a bit more flexible for potential augmentation.

We should add a description that clarifies/defines what "increasing severity" is (since that is the default for how severity 'matches' in the selector/filter.  i.e. say that the order of severity amongst the values is the following in increasing severity order: debug (least severe)->info...->emergency(most severe).

Perhaps reference RFC 5424 again here like is done in the facility identities.

Regards,
Jason