Re: [Syslog] TLS TransportDomain

On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 06:24:51PM -0500, David Harrington wrote: > Hi Glenn, > > How will the syslog/TLS transport address be specified in this > object? > > Response. > A syslog TLS transport domain will be defined. E.g. something > like > SyslogTLSTransportDomain. We will s

RE: [Syslog] severity

David, I went through my notes. Retaining PRI as is is actually a charter item: --- Reviews have shown that there are very few similarities between the message formats generated by heterogeneous systems. In fact, the only consistent commonality between messages is that all of them contain the at

RE: [Syslog] Dbh re-Review of -mib-11, part 1,2,3

> -Original Message- > From: Glenn M. Keeni [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 6:45 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Syslog] Dbh re-Review of -mib-11, part 1,2,3 > > Hi, >I have pruned the list of comments and renumbered them. >The followin

[Syslog] syslEntCtlConfFileName

> -Original Message- > From: Glenn M. Keeni [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 6:45 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Syslog] Dbh re-Review of -mib-11, part 1,2,3 > > > 2.2 > > 6) syslEntCtlConfFileName - using lots of abbreviations in > > > t

[Syslog] allowed

Hi Glenn, > -Original Message- > From: Glenn M. Keeni [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 1.11> > 23) syslEntOpsMsgsIgnored - where are the "allowed > > > specifications" > > > defined? We don't want a value that can be interpreted > > > differently by > > > different enti

[Syslog] SyslogService

Hi Glenn, > -Original Message- > From: Glenn M. Keeni [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 1.7 > > 12) SyslogService - can we make this just a service name. The > > > port semantics are really ambiguous. How do distinguish a UDP > > >port# from a TCP port#? > Not fixed. > > Resp

[Syslog] TLS TransportDomain

Hi Glenn, How will the syslog/TLS transport address be specified in this object? Response. A syslog TLS transport domain will be defined. E.g. something like SyslogTLSTransportDomain. We will specify that as the syslogEntityControlTransportDomain. Thus, we will have

[Syslog] transportDomain and transportAddress

Hi Glenn, Maybe I misunderstand how transportDomain and transportAddress are supposed to work. I have consulted one of the authors of RFC3419 to make sure my understanding is correct. As I read RFC3419, it seems to me that transportDomain and transportAddress form a discriminated union; they for

RE: [Syslog] Syslog-mib-11

Hi, [speaking as a contributor] Thank you Rainer for such a clear response. I recommend that text similar to Rainer's response be included in the DESCRIPTION clause for the syslogEntityControlTable, to explain why multiple syslog entities are modeled in the MIB module. I recommend capturing

[Syslog] Mib terminology and MIB design

Hi, [speaking as coc-ahir] We need WG input on this. Please look at mib-11 and decide whether "entity" is appropriate. Glenn has changed the terminology in many places to be more consistent than previous revisions. In the TLS document, Miao and Yuzhi tried to use a generic term for any role an

Re: [Syslog] severity

- Original Message - From: "Rainer Gerhards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "David Harrington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 4:31 PM Subject: RE: [Syslog] severity > -Original Message- > From: David Harrington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sen

Re: [Syslog] Syslog-mib-11

- Original Message - From: "David Harrington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 9:36 PM Subject: [Syslog] Syslog-mib-11 > > In my latest review of syslog-mib-11, I have started to believe that > Tom was right when he questioned the MIB module desi

RE: [Syslog] severity

> -Original Message- > From: David Harrington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 4:24 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Syslog] severity > > Hi, > > I don't think -protocol- spelled out the restriction clearly that > severity could only be 0-7. The documen

[Syslog] severity

Hi, I don't think -protocol- spelled out the restriction clearly that severity could only be 0-7. The document states that the 0-7 severities listed were not normative. Now that Rainer pointed this out, I do realize that an implementer of the PRI calculation code might recognize that the PRI cal

RE: [Syslog] Syslog-mib-11

David, Sorry for the late reply. In my experience: it depends... Under Linux/Unix, it is most common to have a single instance of the syslog process running. All other processes communicate with that process via local IPC, but the ultimate sender is the single instance of syslogd running. I have

RE: [Syslog] Dbh re-Review of -mib-11, part 1

So far, just one comment... > 1.6 > > 11) in SyslogSeverity, I recommend removing the > second sentnece > > > in the > > > description "The syslog protocol uses the values 0 > (emergency) > > > to 7 (debug)." since this is already spelled out in > the SYNTAX > > > clause,and

Re: [Syslog] Dbh re-Review of -mib-11, part 1

Hi, The following starts the discussion on the points raised in Dbh re-Review of -mib-11, part 1. There is a basic issue about terminology (points 1.1,1.2,1.3, 1.4) and another 1.9 about the nature and usage of indices on which the WG definitely needs to provide input. Cheers Glenn