Subject: [Syslog] MIB document decision

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 16:42:28 -0400

Hi,

I agree the terminology in the MIB document differs from that in
-protocol- and should be updated to match the WG consensus on
terminology.

Here are a few things I spotted that should be fixed or checked:

The references in the MIB are to RFC3164, not the current -protocol-
document produced by the WG. Since -protocol- will be a standard while
RFC3164 is informational, we should reference the standard documents.
(If it is useful to compare the RFC3164 attributes to the -protocol-
attributes, I recommend a section that shows how they map/compare. 

There are DEFVAL default values; are these connsistent with the new
document?
Use existing textual-conventions (such as transportDomain) rather than
SyslogTransport ?
Is syslDevCCtlConfFileName implementation-neutral?
MOs should be spelled out as managed objects.
syslDevOpsLastError - could this contain sen sitive information, such
as passwords or user names?

Has the MIB been checked against RFC4181? 
MIB Doctors will expect a section entitled "Relationship to other MIB
Modules".
See
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/internet-drafts/draft-harrington-tex
t-mib-doc-template-00.txt for further advice about what should be in
the document.
The documents that contain the IMPORTS must be cited in text outside
the MIB module.

The document does not pass the id-nits check by
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/idnits.pyht

It would be good to make this RFC4181-compliant and idnits-compliant
before we start the WGLC.

The document should also be compared to the functionality described in
-protocol-, -udp-, and -tls- documents to make sure the defaults are
consistent, and the management functionality adequate. 

David Harrington
[email-masked] 
[email-masked]
[email-masked]

_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog

---

From: "Glenn M. Keeni" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 15:02:45 +0900

Dave,
    Thanks for the review. I am in full agreement with the observations. 
This
present document belongs to the 3164 era.  Now that the protocol, udp
documents are stable, it is time for an update.
The following are TBDs
    1. Update terminology to bring it incline with the protocol document.
    2. Shift the base reference to the protocol document from RFC3164
    3. Make the defaults specified in the DEFVALs consistent with the
        protocol, udp, tls documents
    4. Make the document RFC4181-compliant, idnits-compliant
       [ref. draft-harrington-text-mib-doc-template-00.txt]
       a. Add references for IMPORTS
       b. Add a paragraph on relationship to other MIBs section
    5. Review
       a. Is syslDevCCtlConfFileName implementation-neutral?
       b. Could syslDevOpsLastError contain sensitive information, such
           as passwords or user names? What will be the impact ?
       c. Is the management functionality adequate?
    6. Editorial nits.
        MO=> managed objects
    7. Make the changes and submit the revised I-D

1-4, 6-7 is doable. I will do it.  I will look for WG input on item 5.
Particularly on 5c.

Cheers

Glenn

---

From: Miao Fuyou <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 18:04:42 +0800

Hi, 

Should we add something about TLS transport?

1, Page 9, trasport, should add TLS, may add DTLS and BEEP

2, Page 10, syslogDefaultTransport's defaul value is UDP, TLS? But I think
it's UDP 

My 0.01$

Thanks!
Miao

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Glenn M. Keeni [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2006 2:03 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Syslog] MIB document decision
> 
> Dave,
> present document belongs to the 3164 era.  Now that the 
> protocol, udp documents are stable, it is time for an update.
> The following are TBDs