Tom, I do not understand what you mean by a technical term. Perhaps entity is as technical as "it". It is convenient and appropriate since we do not know or do not want to predict whether a syslog message will be generated by a "application", "device", "organism", "machine" or whatever.
Glenn tom.petch wrote: > I am with David on this one. Since RFC3164, -protocol, -sign, -tls etc all > manage without reference to 'a technical term. entity', then I think there > needs to be good > justification for introducing a new technical term eg it should label a > distinctly different concept and that I do not see. > > Tom Petch > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Glenn M. Keeni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 2:53 AM > Subject: Re: [Syslog] Mib-13 > > >> Hi, >> Thanks for the comments. A revised I-D mib-14.txt has been >> posted to the drafts archives. The response to the comments >> are given in line below. >> >> Cheers >> >> Glenn >> >> David Harrington wrote: >>> [speaking as a contributor] >>> >>> Glenn, thanks for the new revision. >>> A few comments. >>> >> 1-1. >> >1) I find the use of entity an unnecessary abstraction. >> >"In this document we refer to a syslog application as a syslog >> >entity." >> >Since -protocol- uses application, why not just use syslog >> >application instead of syslog entity? That will make the >> >terminology more consistent. >> > >> I disagree. We have been through device, demon and applications. It >> does appear that "entity" is the most appropriate reference. Let me >> hear more from the WG on this. >> >> 1-2. >> >In the MIB itself, let's change the hierarchy to be >> > >> > syslogObjects >> > | >> > ----------------------------------------- >> > | | | >> >syslogSystem(1) syslogControlTable(2) syslogOperationsTable(3) >> > >> >We don't need the syslogEntity node, or the syslogEntity prefix. This >> >change will make it easier to read, and eliminate the extra sub-oid >> >in every varbind. >> > >> I am not sure that this is the right design. It certainly does not >> look elegant to me. >> Done. >> >> 2. >> >2) "The discussion in this document in general applies to a generic >> >syslog entity." >> >If we get rid of all the generalities, we get "This document applies >> >to syslog applications." >> >Of course, once you remove the indirection, I'm not sure it is needed >> >because it is obvious. >> > >> See 1. >> > <snip> > _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
