On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 10:17:51AM +0100, Rainer Gerhards wrote:
> The only thing that is special with syslog is that under one operating
> system (*nix), there is a different architecture with syslogd. It's not
> Windows that is different. It is the *nix implementation (at least in my
> point of view). The problem is that *nix is obviously the dominant
> implementation and that many boxes use linux as "firmware". So this is
> probably the root cause of the problem.
I like to note that syslog was invented on Unix systems and hence I do
consider the Unix way of doing syslog to be somehow authoritative. But
we do not have to agree on this. ;-)
> I can offer to create a paper on the architecture of syslog in different
> environments. I am still doubtful if such a description belongs into a
> RFC. Maybe it is useful as an informational RFC. But again I think we
> can not *standardize* a software architecture. That does not make sense.
> Different environments and different use cases require different
> architectures.
Dave Harrington's point is that you can't write a proper management
interface (a MIB module) without first understanding the architecture
of the thing you model in the management interface. And this is why
syslog people have to help the SNMP people to get their MIB modules
right. You are not asked to become an expert in SNMP/MIBs - all that
is needed is that you can help draw up a model for a management
interface that matches to ideally all existing syslog implementations.
For that, such a paper would be indeed useful.
/js
--
Juergen Schoenwaelder {International|Jacobs} University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/> P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany
_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
Syslog@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
