Subject: [Syslog] Draft Shepherding document for draft-ietf-syslog-protocol-18.txt

From: Chris Lonvick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 06:26:43 -0800 (PST)

Hi,

Below is the first draft for the shepherding document for 
draft-ietf-syslog-protocol-18.txt.  Please review and send
feedback to the list.

All of this is pending final reviews of the latest document submitted.

===
Having passed a WG Last Call, draft-ietf-syslog-protocol-18.txt is ready
for AD review.

[Area] SECURITY
[WG]   syslog
[I-D]  draft-ietf-syslog-protocol-18.txt
[Qver] draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-08.txt
[Shep] Chris Lonvick <[email-masked]>
===
    (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
           Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
           document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
           version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?
Chris Lonvick <[email-masked]>
Yes; I believe that the document is ready for publication.
===
    (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
           and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have
           any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
           have been performed?

Adequate review has occurred from WG members, and it has been reviewed
by others.  The reviews of the WG Last Call for this document (-17
version) may be found here:

Bert Wijnen's review (not a member of the WG mailing list)
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/syslog/current/msg01243.html

Richard Graveman's review
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/syslog/current/msg01240.html

Sharon Chisolm's review
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/syslog/current/msg01232.html

Tom Petch's review
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/syslog/current/msg01167.html

David Harrington's review
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/syslog/current/msg01144.html

The issues raised in these reviews have been discussed on the mailing
list and I am satisfied about the level of review.

===
    (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
           needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
           e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
           AAA, internationalization or XML?

No.
===
    (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
           issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
           and/or the IESG should be aware of?  For example, perhaps he
           or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
           has concerns whether there really is a need for it.  In any
           event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
           that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
           concerns here.
===
None.

    (1.e)  How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?  Does it
           represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
           others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
           agree with it?
===
There is strong consensus to publish this document.

    (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
           discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
           separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director.  (It
           should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
           entered into the ID Tracker.)

No appeals have been threatened.
===
    (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
           document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
           http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
           http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/).  Boilerplate checks are
           not enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the document
           met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
           Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

XXX - Let's see what -18 looks like - XXX
===
    (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
           informative?  Are there normative references to documents that
           are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
           state?  If such normative references exist, what is the
           strategy for their completion?  Are there normative references
           that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If
           so, list these downward references to support the Area
           Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

The references are split into normative and informational references.
The document is dependant upon draft-ietf-syslog-transport-udp-07.txt
and draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-04.txt which are being submitted
along with this document.
===
    (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
           consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
           of the document?  If the document specifies protocol
           extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
           registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?  If
           the document creates a new registry, does it define the
           proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
           procedure for future registrations?  Does it suggested a
           reasonable name for the new registry?  See
           [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis].  If the document
           describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with
           the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the
           needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

The document IANA section is complete and the requested registries are
clearly marked.
===
    (1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
           document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
           code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
           an automated checker?

The ABNF in the document has been verified through
    http://www.apps.ietf.org/abnf.html
===
    (1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
           Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
           Announcement Writeup?  Recent examples can be found in the
           "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
           announcement contains the following sections:

           Technical Summary
              Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
              and/or introduction of the document.  If not, this may be
              an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
              or introduction.

This document describes the syslog protocol, which is used to convey
event notification messages.  This protocol utilizes a layered
architecture, which allows the use of any number of transport
protocols for transmission of syslog messages.  It also provides a
message format that allows vendor-specific extensions to be provided
in a structured way.

           Working Group Summary
              Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting?  For
              example, was there controversy about particular points or
              were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
              rough?

Nothing worth noting.

           Document Quality
              Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a
              significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
              implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
              merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
              e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
              conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
              there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
              what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
              review, on what date was the request posted?

No one has come forth to claim that they have an existing implementation 
of this protocol at this time.
No vendors have announced that they will utilize this protocol.  Some 
vendors have indicated interest in supporting this document.
The above named reviewers did an outstanding and thorough job.

           Personnel
              Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is the
              Responsible Area Director?
[Area] SECURITY
[WG]   syslog
[I-D]  draft-ietf-syslog-protocol-18.txt
[Qver] draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-08.txt
[Shep] Chris Lonvick <[email-masked]>
[AD]   Sam Hartman <[email-masked]> 
===

Thanks,
Chris

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

---

From: "Rainer Gerhards" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 16:28:11 +0100

Chris,

> The above named reviewers did an outstanding and thorough job.

Though not a major application, I have implemented syslog-protocol-15 in
rsyslog. Please see:

http://www.rsyslog.com/index.php?module=Static_Docs&func=view&f=/syslog-
protocol.html

at least, it is open source and other can have a look at it. I plan to
update the implementation as soon as I have the impression the draft
will move on without any futher changes or discussion.

-transport-tls is not yet implemented but will probably happen within
the same timeframe (also based on the impression that there won't be any
major change).

Rainer

---

From: Miao Fuyou <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 14:02:46 +0800

Some implementation information about syslog-tls:

I asked some graduate students in an university to implement the
specification. The implementation is based on openssl and rsyslog. The
implementation was finished on October and proved it works. 

The implementation implemented version number and use "user_canceled" TLS
alert to indicate a unsupported version number.

> ===
> Having passed a WG Last Call,
> draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-04.txt is ready for AD review. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rainer Gerhards [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 11:28 PM
> To: Chris Lonvick
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Syslog] Draft Shepherding 
> documentfordraft-ietf-syslog-protocol-18.txt
> 
> Chris,
> 
> >            Document Quality
> >               conclusion that the document had no 
> substantive issues?  
> > If
> >               what was its course (briefly)?  In the case 
> of a Media 
> > Type
> > No one has come forth to claim that they have an existing 
> > implementation of this protocol at this time.
> Though not a major application, I have implemented 
> syslog-protocol-15 in rsyslog. Please see:
> 
> at least, it is open source and other can have a look at it. 
> I plan to update the implementation as soon as I have the 
> impression the draft will move on without any futher changes 
> or discussion.
> 
> -transport-tls is not yet implemented but will probably 
> happen within the same timeframe (also based on the 
> impression that there won't be any major change).
> 
> Rainer
>