Security ADs, Having passed a WG Last Call, draft-ietf-syslog-protocol-14.txt is ready for AD review.
[Area] SECURITY [WG] syslog [I-D] draft-ietf-syslog-protocol-14.txt [Qver] draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-05.txt [Shep] Chris Lonvick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The WG last call turned up no additional comments or discussion. 1.a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready to forward to the IESG for publication? Yes. 1.b) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members and key non-WG members? Do you have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? Adequate review has occurred from WG members, and it has been reviewed by others. I am satisfied about the level of review. 1.c) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)? No. 1.d) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or have concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if your issues have been discussed in the WG and the WG has indicated it that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns in the write-up. No. 1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There is strong consensus to publish this document. 1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email to the Responsible Area Director. No. 1.g) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all of the ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html). Section 9.1 and 9.2 state that the IANA must "maintain" a registry. This needs to be changed to state that the IANA is requested to "create" a registry for the described values. The author can make this minor change when working with the RFC Editor. 1.h) Is the document split into normative and informative references? Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? (note here that the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with normative references to IDs, it will delay publication until all such IDs are also ready for publication as RFCs.) The references are split into normative and informational references. The document is dependent upon draft-ietf-syslog-transport-udp-05.txt but that is being submitted along with this document. 1.ijk) Write-up section: * Technical Summary This document describes the syslog protocol, which is used to convey event notification messages. This protocol utilizes a layered architecture, which allows the use of any number of transport protocols for transmission of syslog messages. It also provides a message format that allows vendor-specific extensions to be provided in a structured way. * Working Group Summary The consensus of the working group was to publish this as a standards-track document. * Protocol Quality It is possible that there are implementations of this document in various stages of completion at this time. Some equipment vendors have indicated interest in supporting this document, and some non-commercial implementations are also expected. === _______________________________________________ Syslog-sec mailing list Syslogemail@example.com http://www.employees.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog-sec