Subject: [netmod] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-23: (with COMMENT)

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2018 12:06:24 -0800

Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-23: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for this document.

I also prefer for TCP to be documented, if used in real world.

Some minor comments:

1) Please add a Normative Reference for the file: URI RFC (RFC 8089) when you
mention it for the first time.

2) On page 19:

Example: compare->equals and action->no-match means
messages that have a severity that is not equal to the
specified severity will be logged.";

Do you mean "action->block" instead of "action->no-match"?

3) When logging to file: how is the file name constructed from the name file:
URI if multiple files are preserved by the system? E.g. if the log file is
rotated daily and 5 last files are preserved, how does each individual filename
look? If I understood how this is used, this needs more clarification.

4) Nit: on page 18, typo in "spectify"

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 15:17:48 +0100

Hi Alexey, Warren,
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model/
I've seen this comment in Warren's comment at 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model/ballot/#warren-kumari. 
However, I can't find his ballot in email.
So let me reply to both of you here.

This was discussed on the NETMOD mailing list. See subject "I-D Action: 
draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-19.txt"
The fact is that RFC 6587 is now historic, implying a historic downref.

I'm in favor to publish the document as it is right now, whose 00 WG 
doc. version dates from Nov 2014.
Augmenting a YANG module, if TCP is required, is not that hard.

Regards, Benoit
> .

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 11:25:22 -0500

> However, I can't find his ballot in email.

That's because of my cunning plan of not clicking the Send Mail button.

I'd viewed my comments as just informational / preferences and not
worth cluttering up people's mail.

> I'm in favor to publish the document as it is right now, whose 00 WG doc.
> version dates from Nov 2014.

SGTM!
W

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf

---

From: "Clyde Wildes (cwildes)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 21:28:50 +0000

Alexey,

Your minor comments are addressed below…

On 3/6/18, 12:06 PM, "Alexey Melnikov" <[email-masked]> wrote:

    

    
    Some minor comments:

[clw] Accepted
    
    2) On page 19:

[clw] An equals compare with action no-match means log the message, not block it.

[clw] We decided to leave this for the implementer as file systems may be different for different implementations.

[clw] Accepted  

Thanks,

Clyde

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 14:44:26 +0000

Hi Clyde,

> [clw] An equals compare with action no-match means log the message, not 

Your document only talks about "action->no-match" in one place in the example. Has terminology changes over years and you forgot to update the example?

It is possible I am confused here.

> [clw] We decided to leave this for the implementer as file systems may 
> be different for different implementations.

I think you should clarify in the document what is the purpose of filename and say something about the above. I appreciate that this might not be needed for interoperability, but what you have in the document doesn't provide enough details to implement this aspect. Even saying that implementations can derive log specific filenames from the base one instead of saying nothing would be better.

Thank you,
Alexey

---

From: "Clyde Wildes (cwildes)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 21:04:28 +0000

Alexey,

I believe that I have addressed both of your concerns in the about to be published draft.

Thanks,

Clyde

On 3/9/18, 6:44 AM, "Alexey Melnikov" <[email-masked]> wrote:

    Hi Clyde,

    

    
    
    Thank you,
    Alexey