Hi Tom,
I appreciate the thoughts.
I see consensus in the WG on the layering diagram. I've asked Rainer to
update -protocol with that diagram and definitions. Let's get that out
the door at this time.
I see that we are unclear on what we should be counting and the benefit of
counting it.
Hi,
[speaking as co-chair]
We asked Glenn to split the two textual conventions into a seperate
document because other working groups are developing MIB modules that
reference syslog facility and severity textual conventions, and we
don't want our complete syslog MIB discussions to hold up their
Hi,
Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 03:06:46PM -0400, David Harrington wrote:
I would like to do a poll:
1) Should these textual conventions be accepted as they are?
I am fine with the *nix biased values since this is where syslog is
coming from and extremely widely
I would like to do a poll:
1) Should these textual conventions be accepted as they are?
Yes.
2) Would this WG like to see us define a normative set or a
non-normative set of facilities and severities?
Non-normative.
3) Whether normative or non-normative, which is more important?
tom.petch wrote:
Chris
I am fine with the layer diagram given below but I am less clear about the
consequences for the MIB.
Currently, there is a table with an arbitrary integer index which contains
application name, application control file name, receive address and
statistics.
I have
