Subject: [Syslog] formal Consultation prior to concluding the working group

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:12:40 -0500

Greetings.  I'd like to draw yo;ur attention to section 4 of RFC 2418.

This section requires area directors to consult with a working group
prior to concluding that working group.  At the meeting in Vancouver I
started such a consultation by noting that once the next set of
milestones is approved I would conclude the working group if these
milestones are missed.

However Rainer Gerhards's messages call into question whether we can
even come to sufficient consensus to proceed at all.

As such, I'm formally requesting input on the following questions:

1) Is there sufficient consensus on the direction of the work that this working group can continue?

2) Is there another charter under which the working group would better
   be able to make progress?

Please Submit comments to me and preferably also to the list by
December 1, 2005.

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

---

From: Darren Reed <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 00:55:44 +1100 (EST)

>    be able to make progress?

I believe the answer to this is yes.

There is very relevant work this group could do and should do.

If you look at what the community at large has done with implementing
syslog in recent years, the only conclusion that you can draw is that
what it has been doing, apart from 3164, has been quite distant from
what this should have been doing.

Darren

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 11:55:29 -0500

>>>>> "Darren" == Darren Reed <[email-masked]> writes:

    >>  2) Is there another charter under which the working group
    >> would better be able to make progress?

    Darren> I believe the answer to this is yes.

    Darren> There is very relevant work this group could do and should
    Darren> do.

In that case I'd recommend that you see if you can get consensus on
such a charter.

--Sam

---

From: Chris Lonvick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 12:40:15 -0800 (PST)

Hi,

Apologies for the silence.  I'm busy with the day job today and tomorrow.

Very briefly, I'd suggest that we can work towards a charter that 
formalizes syslog but does not break existing syslog recievers.  Once 
there, we can add in the Structured Data parts that can be used for higher 
level functions such as signing the messages.

Does that approach make sense?  If so, I can start working out a draft 
charter that says that we will do just that.

I would like to hear from more people on this.

Thanks,
Chris