Subject: [Syslog] MIB Doctor review of draft-ietf-syslog-tc-mib-04.txt

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 11:34:10 +0100

The document is in good shape, it compiles cleanly and passes idnits
checks. 

I have a few editorial comments:

1. I do not believe that it is necessary to carry all the duplicated
text in the MIB module as commented text, as it does not provide any
significant implementation information.

2. It would be good to mention in the TC definition or by using the
REFERENCE clause that the enumerated values replicate the values defined
respectively in tables 1 and 2 of [RFCPROT]. 

3. The document carries the standard security considerations section for
documents defining Textual Conventions. This text states correctly that
the TCs themselves do not introduce security concerns, but in this case
most probably objects defined by using these TCs will. To be on the
strict side I would add a phrase that says 'Objects defined using the
TCs defined in this document may introduce security issues, and the user
of these TCs should read the security considerations section of
[RFCPROT].'

Dan

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

---

From: "Glenn M. Keeni" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 11:01:51 +0900

Dan,

   Thanks.
   Comments are inline.

> significant implementation information.
I will agree with this.
Are there any other opinions / suggestions on this issue ? > Syslog-WG
> respectively in tables 1 and 2 of [RFCPROT]. 

OK.

> of these TCs should read the security considerations section of

OK.

I will update the document and post a revised draft on the 16th of January.

Glenn

---

From: "David B Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 02:47:27 -0500

Hi, 

> Are there any other opinions / suggestions on this issue ? >
Syslog-WG

I believe the normative nature of the labels and values, and the
non-normative nature of the mappings to applications, is important
information for implementation and interpretation. If the MIB module
is separated from the document, we want to make sure this information
stays with the MIB module.

Therefeore, I would keep the text about the normative nature of the
labels and values in the MIB module and remove the duplicate text from
the surrounding document, if you are going to remove one of the
duplicates.

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

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 08:54:01 +0100

> the surrounding document, if you are going to remove one of the

If the text is important (and I tend to agree it is), then it should
be in the DESCRIPTION clause and not comments. This also requires to
split the text into the text relevant for facilities and the text
relevant for severities.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

---

From: "Glenn M. Keeni" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:13:10 +0900

OK. The general consensus seems to be that the commented text be
moved to the DESCRIPTION clause. I will do that.

I will also propose to leave the text in the "Background" section
as it is. It is an important part of the Background. Let me know
if there is disagreement.

Glenn

Bert Wijnen - IETF wrote:
> If so, then I would propose to move the text into DESCRIPTION
> caluses, and not have them as comment lines.
> 
> Bert Wijnen 
> 
>> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
>> Van: David B Harrington [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> Verzonden: donderdag 10 januari 2008 8:47
>> Aan: 'Glenn M. Keeni'; 'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'
>> CC: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; 'Sam Hartman'
>> Onderwerp: [MIB-DOCTORS] RE: MIB Doctor review
>> ofdraft-ietf-syslog-tc-mib-04.txt
>>
>>
>> Hi, 
>>
>> MIB-DOCTORS mailing list
>> [email-masked]
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib-doctors
>>

---

From: "Bert Wijnen - IETF" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:18:29 +0100

Bert Wijnen