Subject: [Syslog] WGLC results : Syslog-MIB

From: "Glenn M. Keeni" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 07:15:26 +0900

Hi,
    The status of the draft is attached.

Glenn

Current draft: draft-ietf-syslog-device-mib-09.txt ( September 3, 2006)

Comments:
      Editorial: None

      Closed Issues:
         1. Comment: Tables in the MIB to serve "groups of" syslog
            entities look different in focus from the other syslog
            protocols
            o Reference
               Re: [Syslog] Working Group Last Call: syslog-mib document
               Tom Petch [2006/09/28 23:05]
            o Action: explained the usage and necessity of the tables to
               serve a group of syslog entities
            o Status: I think that the issue is closed.

      Open Issues:
         1. Comments: should anything on syslog-sign be added?
            o Reference
              RE: [Syslog] MIB document decision
              Alexander Clemm [2006/09/21 6:47]
            o Action: sent back the question to the WG
            o Status: The Syslog-sign related module may be added
              now or later ( in a separate document, after a few
              implementations and some experience). If the working
              group does want it to be in this document, we will do
              it.
      Glenn

David Harrington wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Will the editors of the WGLC'd documents please collect the comments
> made for each of your documents into a single document, preferably
> text, and indicate what was done in the document to address the issue
> raised. 
> 
> Send the summary document to the chairs, with a copy of your current
> in-process document containing the fixes thus far, so the chairs can
> review your fixes. Once we have reviewed the fixes, we may ask for
> some changes. Then we will have you publish a new I-D, which we will
> send to the WG.
> 
> It would be good to separate the issues document into three sections:
> 
> 1) purely editorial issues (spelling, grammar, etc.) 
> 
> 2) Closed issues
> 
> Technical issues where consensus was obvious. For each issue, please
> describe who raised the issue, and how the document was changed to
> address the issue. The chairs will review the changes to make sure
> they represent what the chairs consider to be WG consensus.
> 
> 3) Open issues
> 
> Technical issues where the resolution is unclear. Please identify who
> raised the issue. If you have a proposed fix, please describe it. The
> chairs will review the issues and determine whether it is an issue
> that needs resolution, whether your proposal is acceptable and in
> keeping with WG consensus, or whether it needs to be discussed further
> by the WG.
> 
>  
> Thanks,
> 
> David Harrington
> [email-masked] 
> [email-masked]
> [email-masked]
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Syslog mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog

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