Glenn One issue that occurred to me that I do not think has surfaced before is the nature of references in the MIB module which must make sense outside the wrapper of the RFC, so that [RFCUDPX], [RFCTLSX] and [RFCBEEP] won't do. . Look at how this is handled in, for example, draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-mib-09, RFC4273 or RFC4750.
Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Glenn M. Keeni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 9:43 AM Subject: Re: [Syslog] Mib issues and resolutions > Hi, > David asked for a "quick summary" for the WG. I have prepared > a document which is not quick and is not much of a summary. > It provides > - pointers to the mails where issues were raised, > - the originator of the mail, > - the main issues, > - the action and, > - the conclusion. > It will be useful if you use this "summary" along with some mail > archive tool (the wg archive covers only the last few days, > you may try http://www.cysol.co.jp/contrib/syslogmib/threads.html) > Please note: > a. It covers only discussions related to the MIB, issues > related to other documents are not covered. > b. It covers the period starting from the WGLC > c. The list of main issues for each mail is not exhaustive. > The positions of individuals and the pros and cons are not > included. > Please refer to the original the mail if you are looking > for a detailed list. > Please let me know if I have missed some threads. > > Cheers > > 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 MIB ? => Multiple entities. > > RE: [Syslog] MIB document decision, Alexander Clemm (alex) > To handle SyslogSign or not. > WG polled. No response. => Leave for later > ( Separate Document) > > [Syslog] WGLC results : Syslog-MIB, Glenn M. Keeni > [Syslog] RE: Request for Reviewers - draft-ietf-syslog-device-mib-09.txt, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) > SMICng errors => Done > MIB nits => Done > syslog-transport over tls -> discussed => revised > > [Syslog] Dbh Review of -mib-09, part 1, David Harrington > ID-nits > Terminology: sender, receiver, relay -> Discussed => Entity > SyslogSeverity: "other" -> Discussed > syslog-transport -> Discussed => revise > syslEntOpsMsgsIgnored: unclear -> Discussed => revise > syslEntOpsLastError: unclear -> Discussed => revise > syslEntOpsReference: unclear -> Discussed => revise > > [Syslog] Dbh re-Review of -mib-11, part 1, David Harrington > Terminology: sender, receiver, relay -> Discussed => Entity > SyslogSeverity: "other" usage ? -> Discussed > SyslogService: UDP/TCP ? -> Discussed > Descriptive Indices -> Discussed => Use Description MOs > syslEntOpsMsgsIgnored: Allowed Specs? -> Discussed > syslEntOpsLastError: unclear -> Clarified => revise > > [Syslog] Dbh re-review of Mib-11-, part 2, David B Harrington > transportAddressType/Service unclear -> Discussed > syslogEntityControlStorageType -> Discussed => revise > notifications: Description unclear -> Discussed => revise > notifications: mandatory/optional ? -> Clarified => optional > transport security: discuss ? -> Discussed => comment withdrawn > > [Syslog] -mib-, part 3, David Harrington > Add congestion avoidance ? -> No reaction from WG > > [Syslog] Review of Mib-10, part 1, David Harrington > mainly ID, MIB nits => fix > > [Syslog] Mib -10-, part 2, David Harrington > Terminology -> Discussed earlier > One or more syslog entities per MIB ? -> Discussed earlier > > [Syslog] Review of mib-11, part 3, David Harrington > Purpose of Default parameters -> Explained > > [Syslog] Syslog-mib-11, David Harrington > One or more syslog entities per MIB ? -> Discussed => multiple entities > > [Syslog] Syslog-mib-12, David Harrington > To WG: Fig1, Terminology > > Re: [Syslog] Submission of draft-ietf-syslog-device-mib-12.txt, Juergen Schoenwaelder > Transport Domain matter -> Discussed => Revise > > [Syslog] Rfc3164 and mib, David Harrington > RFC3164 to be obsoleted => Revise > > [Syslog] MIB Issue #1 - one or multiple? Seeking consensus, David Harrington > One or multiple entity per MIB -> Discussed => Multiple entities > > [Syslog] MIB Issue #2: document terminology., David Harrington > Terminology -> Discussed > > [Syslog] Mib-13, David Harrington > "Entity" unnecessary abstraction -> Explained => Waiting for WG input > restructure mib tree => Revise > Fig-1 unclear ? Incomplete ? -> Explained > MsgsSent ? => Add MO > unclear/incomplete Descriptions -> Explained => Revise > > entity `Re: [Syslog] Mib-13, tom.petch > Entity vs application -> Discussed > > > _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
