- Original Message -
From: "David Harrington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Rainer Gerhards'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Chris Lonvick'"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "'syslog'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent:
>
> 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 importa
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 extrem
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 deployed. However, I have no clue
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 w
