- Original Message -
From: David Harrington [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 7:33 PM
Subject: [Syslog] timeline
1) whether draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls should use byte-counting,
special character, or both, including which special character. We
From: David Harrington [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 7:33 PM
Subject: [Syslog] timeline
Here are two things we need to resolve soon.
snip
2) whether draft-ietf-syslog-device-mib represents WG consensus on
what needs to be managed in the protocol, udp,
The only comments I would add are
- p.18 suggest replacing 'ABNF %D92' by 'ABNF %d92'
- 6.4 suggest ' a meta SD-ID' for 'an meta SD-ID'
- 8.1 suggest replacing. 'security issues bound with UNICODE' by
'security issues with UNICODE' or
'security issues bound up with UNICODE'
- On ITU
inline tp
- Original Message -
From: Anton Okmianski (aokmians) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: David Harrington [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Rainer Gerhards
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 8:04 PM
Subject: RE: [Syslog] byte-counting vs special character
I second these
- Original Message -
From: Glenn M. Keeni [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: [Syslog] Working Group Last Calls
Hi,
Sincere apologies for the delay in sending the following comments
on the Syslog Protocol document. I faced
] Working Group Last Calls
tom.petch wrote:
c. In Table 1
Facility 9,15 both denote the clock daemon
Facility 4,14 both denote security/authorization messages
So what:-)
a. I would consider that to be sloppy specs. I will not argue
any further on that point
inline
- Original Message -
From: Glenn M. Keeni [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: tom.petch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 7:57 AM
Subject: Re: [Syslog] Working Group Last Call: syslog-mib document
Tom,
Your observation is correct. I guess
- Original Message -
From: Chris Lonvick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Sharon Chisholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 9:37 PM
Subject: RE: [Syslog] Alarm MIB in syslog-protocol
On Fri, 3 Nov 2006, Sharon Chisholm wrote:
Actually, no structured data
- Original Message -
From: Rainer Gerhards [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Miao Fuyou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 10:12 AM
Subject: RE: [Syslog] Updated Syslog-tls Document
-Original Message-
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder
Original Message -
From: Miao Fuyou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Rainer Gerhards' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'tom.petch'
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 7:58 AM
Subject: RE: Ciphersuites Re: [Syslog] Updated Syslog-tls Document
Hi,
It looks good. I tend
Chris
I agreed (mostly) with the actions in your e-mail but do not see them all
reflected in -05. See inline
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: Chris Lonvick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Miao Fuyou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 11:05 PM
Subject:
- 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]
Sent: Thursday,
This is also tied up with the scalar/table question. If we had a scalar MIB
module, then much of my difficulty would vanish.
If we keep the table, then it should not be of entities. As you point out,
SNMPv3 has given the word 'entity' a specific meaning and I think it wrong to
re-use the word
. Doing so would place no constraints on syslog
designers, implementers, or users (except of course, the designers of
this mib module).
David Harrington
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: tom.petch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent
I am not convinced that the proposed solutions match the underlying problem.
Syslog:
- can be -protocol or RFC3164 (or RFC3164bis or ...)
- may be signed.
- may be secured with TLS (or SSH or DTLS or ...)
- could run over UDP or TCP (or SCTP or ..)
What we have then done is to bind
- Original Message -
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: tom.petch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Glenn M. Keeni [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: TransportDomain. Was: Re: [Syslog] Submission
ofdraft-ietf-syslog-device-mib
Dbh
Yes, another lucid explanation of a tricky subject.
The issue I wish I had never raised :-) was a response to Juergen saying
The combination of
syslogEntityControlBindAddr InetAddress
syslogEntityControlTransportDomain TransportDomain
syslogEntityControlService SyslogService
- Original Message -
From: David Harrington [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Glenn M. Keeni' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 10:34 PM
Subject: RE: [Syslog] TransportDomain issue
[speaking as
inline
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: Rainer Gerhards [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Glenn M. Keeni [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 2:46 PM
Subject: RE: [Syslog] Syslog Protocol doubts
Hi Glen,
thanks for the message. Let me start on an overview level:
- Original Message -
From: David Harrington [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'tom.petch' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Rainer Gerhards'
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Glenn M. Keeni' [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 11:42 PM
Subject: RE: [Syslog] Syslog Protocol doubts
[speaking as co
I do not believe that the MIB should be modelled to support multiple instances
of a syslog device as an SNMP table.
Where multiple instances do exist in a single machine, and there is a
requirement to manage more than one with SNMP, then I believe that the usual
SNMP techniques are adequate to
Mmm
I agree that management, SNMP or any kind, is only possible once we have agreed
a model - at some level - of what we are managing. But I have no problems with
the model in RFC3164 that has been carried across into the current I-D - except
one, which is for me the core of the problem.
So
- Original Message -
From: Glenn M. Keeni [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: tom.petch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: David Harrington [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 5:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Syslog] MIB Issue #1 - one or multiple? Seeking consensus
tom.petch wrote:
I do
inline
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: Miao Fuyou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Sam Hartman' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 5:50 AM
Subject: RE: [Syslog] AD Review for draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls
Hi Sam,
Thanks for the review! My response is
Because our chair proposed it and copied Sam on the e-mail? (21Nov2005)
BCP0047 is horrendously complex, way over the top for most use cases and fails
to define a simple subset when that is all the application needs. ISO meets the
need, why make it more complex than it need be? I would not like
inline
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: David Harrington [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: 'tom.petch' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 7:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Syslog] An early last call comment on protocol-19
David
inline
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: tom.petch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: David Harrington [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Syslog] An early last call comment on protocol-19
tom == tom petch
- Original Message -
From: Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: tom.petch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: David Harrington [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 10:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Syslog] An early last call comment on protocol-19
What part of 4646 allows non-ASCII
Glenn
snip
[Syslog] Working Group Last Call: syslog-mib document, David B Harrington
Re: [Syslog] Working Group Last Call: syslog-mib document, tom.petch
The subject of the MIB = Entity
One or more syslog entities per
See RFC3967
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: David Harrington [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Alexander Clemm (alex)' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 5:24 AM
Subject: [Syslog] RE: syslog-sign
Hi,
snip
Can Informational documents be Normative?
dbh
Chris
I have looked at this and will look at it again in more depth next week. Some
of the new terminology in s.3 is unfamiliar to me and, while the end result is
not as complex as say RFC3411, it is still going to take a while for me to grasp
(by inference) the role of eg parser and formatter,
, June 01, 2007 3:17 PM
To: tom.petch
Cc: 'Sam Hartman'; syslog
Subject: Re: Layer diagram mib counters - was:Re:
[Syslog] Comments
ondraft-ietf-syslog-protocol-20
Hi Tom,
I appreciate the thoughts.
I see consensus in the WG on the layering diagram. I've
asked
'
(or not) or
whatever so that a consensus may form.
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: David Harrington [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'tom.petch' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Chris Lonvick'
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: 'Sam Hartman' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'syslog' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 8:46 PM
Subject: RE
historic function.
Rainer
-Original Message-
From: Chris Lonvick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 3:17 PM
To: tom.petch
Cc: 'Sam Hartman'; syslog
Subject: Re: Layer diagram mib counters - was:Re:
[Syslog] Comments
ondraft-ietf-syslog
Um
The three syslog layer definitions look good to me, but the five that come after
do not seem quite to fit
' o An originator generates syslog content to be carried in a
message.
o A collector gathers syslog content for further analysis.'
From the earlier definition, I think the
- Original Message -
From: David Harrington [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'tom.petch' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Chris Lonvick'
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'syslog' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 2:20 PM
Subject: RE: [Syslog] New -protocol document - your comments needed by 25 June
Hi,
Would
Chris
-protocol-21 says
Facility and Severity values are not normative but often used.
(something I have quoted on this list before:-)
I am not sure how this fits with the changes to -mib.
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: Chris Lonvick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Glenn
I think that the existing, already agreeed text in protocol-21 does give us a
three way split in the stack. Looking at the ABNF, there is MSG which is
prepended by additional fields to form SYSLOG-MSG which will in turn be
prepended before the PDU is placed on the wire. So I can see a
. Keeni [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: tom.petch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Chris Lonvick [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2007 2:44 AM
Subject: Re: [Syslog] draft-ietf-syslog-protocol-21.txt: section 3 containsnew
text to address ietf last call comments (fwd)
Tom,
I do
This topic may be being driven by
draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-guidelines-02 by Eggert/Fairhurst.
Worth a peruse; quoting out of context (is syslog bulk or not?), it contains
such as
If an application or upper-layer protocol chooses not to use a
congestion-controlled transport protocol, it SHOULD
- Original Message -
From: David Harrington [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'tom.petch' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Miao Fuyou' [EMAIL PROTECTED];
'Rainer Gerhards' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 12:12 AM
Subject: RE: [Syslog] transport-tls-11 review
Hi,
Let me
Snipping out the agreements, and taking dbh's point about this I-D being in A-D
Evaluation and so may be beyond comment:-), see inline
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: Miao Fuyou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'tom.petch' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Rainer Gerhards'
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL
42 matches
Mail list logo
