Hi Sam,
Please publish draft-ietf-syslog-transport-udp-08 as a Proposed
Standard RFC.
Attached is the shepherding document for
draft-ietf-syslog-transport-udp-08, including the Document
Announcement Write-Up and contact information.
David Harrington
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
co-chair, Syslog WG
Shepherding document for draft-ietf-syslog-transport-udp-08
[Area] SECURITY
[WG] syslog
[I-D] draft-ietf-syslog-transport-udp-08.txt
[Qver] draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-08.txt
[Shep] David Harrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?
David Harrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I believe that this version is ready for publication.
(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?
The document has been reviewed by the Working Group and by people outside
of the Working Group. There are no concerns about the reviews. The
recent reviews may be found in the mailing list archive:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/syslog/current/msg01242.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/syslog/current/msg01246.html
In particular, since UDP lacks congestion control, we consulted TSVWG, and have
followed the recommendations concerning provisioning to account for the syslog
traffic.
(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization or XML
No. We have sought reviews from a number of experts and are satisfied this
document has received adequate expert review.
(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he
or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if those issues have been discussed in the WG and the
WG has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document,
detail those concerns here.
There are no specific concerns.
(1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
agree with it?
The Working Group as a whole understands the document and supports it
moving forward. UDP is widely supported as a transport for syslog.
(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
should be in a separate email because this questionnaire will
be entered into the ID Tracker.)
No appeals have been threatened.
(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document satisfies
all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
Yes. The document was generated using xml2rfc, has passed automated checking
using idnits 1.118 , and passed a manual check of idnits by the shepherd.
(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? Are there normative references to documents that
are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
state? If such normative references exist, what is the
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].
The references are split and all referenced documents are RFCs in good
standing.
This document is co-dependent upon draft-ietf-syslog-protocol. These documents
are being submitted together.
(1.i) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the
"Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:
Technical Summary
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
or introduction.
This document describes the transport for syslog messages over UDP/
IPv4 or UDP/IPv6. The syslog protocol layered architecture provides
for support of any number of transport mappings. However, for
interoperability purposes, syslog protocol implementers are required
to support this transport protocol.
Working Group Summary
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
example, was there controversy about particular points or
were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
rough?
This document has been ready for a very long time. The holdup has been
that the Working Group decided to revise draft-ietf-syslog-protocol. This
action has been completed.
Document Quality
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?
This document describes a standardized udp transport for syslog that is
similar to that found in various existing implementations. Because the
working group paid a great deal of attention to backwards compatibility issues,
most
implementations will be able to support this transport with little work.
We have had through reviews done by a number of people, including Bert Wijnen,
Richard Graveman of the OIF, and others, and the consensus has been that this
document is well-written and complete.
[Area] SECURITY
[WG] syslog
[I-D] draft-ietf-syslog-transport-udp-08.txt
[Qver] draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-08.txt
[Shep] David Harrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
Syslog@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
