[Syslog] SDE proposals
Hi, As syslog WG co-chair, let me make the WG aware of this point. Standardization of structured data elements (SDEs) is out of scope for this WG. The syslog WG is a **security** WG, not a data modeling WG. The protocol document describes the fact that IANA-registered SDEs should be approved by Standards action. That is for (IETF-sponsored) IANA-registered SDEs only. Individuals can define their own SDEs (containing an at-sign) that are not IANA registered. We have had a couple drafts brought to this WG that define SDEs. If members of this WG want to standardize SDEs, they should request the creation of a WG in the OPS area to do that work, or if the SDEs relate to a specific type of SDEs, such as those related to RAI technologies, you might be abel to start a WG in the associated area. You will probably need to develop a charter, with document deliverables, timelines within which the documents will be delivered, and limits on which types of SDEs will be developed within the documents. Charters can be renewed to develop new documents for SDEs with different focus over time. Personally, I think defining and registering standard SDEs would be very valuable work. However, the syslog WG in the Security Area is not the correct WG to host this work. David Harrington [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] co-chair, syslog WG ___ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
Re: [Syslog] SDE proposals
Hi, David is correct in this. No matter how strongly we feel that defining SDEs for other applications is good work, it will not be done in this WG. For documents that describe new SDEs, the alternatives to forming a new WG are: - have SDEs defined in a WG that is already dealing with that application - produce individual contribution documents and get the support of an Area Director to turn them into RFCs. Please keep in mind that draft-ietf-syslog-protocol lists the IETF Consensus method for adding new SDEs. From RFC 2434: IETF Consensus - New values are assigned through the IETF consensus process. Specifically, new assignments are made via RFCs approved by the IESG. Typically, the IESG will seek input on prospective assignments from appropriate persons (e.g., a relevant Working Group if one exists). Thanks, Chris On Tue, 1 May 2007, David Harrington wrote: Hi, As syslog WG co-chair, let me make the WG aware of this point. Standardization of structured data elements (SDEs) is out of scope for this WG. The syslog WG is a **security** WG, not a data modeling WG. The protocol document describes the fact that IANA-registered SDEs should be approved by Standards action. That is for (IETF-sponsored) IANA-registered SDEs only. Individuals can define their own SDEs (containing an at-sign) that are not IANA registered. We have had a couple drafts brought to this WG that define SDEs. If members of this WG want to standardize SDEs, they should request the creation of a WG in the OPS area to do that work, or if the SDEs relate to a specific type of SDEs, such as those related to RAI technologies, you might be abel to start a WG in the associated area. You will probably need to develop a charter, with document deliverables, timelines within which the documents will be delivered, and limits on which types of SDEs will be developed within the documents. Charters can be renewed to develop new documents for SDEs with different focus over time. Personally, I think defining and registering standard SDEs would be very valuable work. However, the syslog WG in the Security Area is not the correct WG to host this work. David Harrington [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] co-chair, syslog WG ___ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog ___ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
RE: [Syslog] geographic location in syslog -draft-dulaunoy-syslog-geolocation-00
Hi Alexandre, What is the use case for adding geographic meta data to syslog messages? Why should this be an RFC? Why would this not be payload (and therefore not part of any syslog standard)? Where would the data be sourced from, presumably a GPS attached to the device generating syslog messages? GPS typically output NMEA sentences, serialized as ASCII text. It might be easier computationally and standards-wise to adopt the appropriate NMEA sentence format, GLL, and include that in the relevant syslog messages: http://www.gpsinformation.org/dale/nmea.htm#GLL. This solution would invalidate my next two comments. However GLL does not include altitude data so you would still have to account for that; currently GPS vendors use proprietary NMEA 0183 sentences for this purpose (there's information on the same page). The WGS 84 coordinate system referenced in the draft uses an X-Y-Z coordinate system, not latitude and longitude. You should explicitly call out that these are signed values and what valid sign characters are, etc., and not use latitude and longitude. If you want to use latitude and longitude, the messages are missing cardinal compass direction references (N/S and E/W). Also altitude is presumably signed in this case. I hope this is helpful. Best regards, Eric Fitzgerald Microsoft Corporation -Original Message- From: Alexandre Dulaunoy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 10:10 PM To: syslog@lists.ietf.org Subject: [Syslog] geographic location in syslog -draft-dulaunoy-syslog-geolocation-00 Dear, We had the need to add geographic meta information to syslog messages. Here is a draft : Title : geographic location in syslog Author(s) : A. Dulaunoy Filename: draft-dulaunoy-syslog-geolocation-00.txt Pages : 7 Date: 2007-4-30 http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dulaunoy-syslog-geolocation-00 .txt Feel free to review and provide your comments. Thanks a lot, Best regards, ___ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog ___ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
