I think these messages may never have made it to the wg.
--- Begin Message ---
Topics:
Re: Prefix - was: RE: [Syslog-sec] AD Review for
Re: [Syslog-sec] AD Review for draft-ietf-syslog-protocol-14
Re: [Syslog-sec] AD Review for draft-ietf-syslog-protocol-14
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The ssh ids are in the rfc editor queue and have been there for
months, so waiting on them is not an issue. However I believe copying
the text is fine.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi. Sorry about the delay.
Your proposed directions seem reasonable. However based on your
comments on operator input I'm going to request explicit review from
the ops directorate.
I'd like to give some proposed constraints on the solutions for the
sd-ids and parameters.
1) It seems like it should be relatively easy to add vendor
extensions. Mechanisms for doing this include a liberal IANA
policy, vendor prefixes or vendor suffixes (like ssh).
2) It may be desirable to have a way to extend sd-ids with
vendor-specific parameters. However if such a mechanism exists,
there also needs to be a way to extend sd-ids with standards track
parameters. I.E. it seems silly for it to be more inconvenient for
the IETF to extend something than a vendor. Possible ways of
handling this are to allow standards track specifications to update
the list of sd-params for sd-id, creating a special notation for
after-the-fact extensions (a special prefix, @ietf.org suffix,
etc), or removing the mechanism for vendor extensions to sd-params
completely.
3) Namespace uniqueness should be considered. How important this is
depends on how difficult it is to get a name registered. For
example with a liberal IANA policy like first-come-first-serve or
specification required, x- may be a fine prefix for sd-ids. A
vendor concerned by namespace conflicts can just register an
extension. However if the iANA policy is going to be more
restrictive, then mechanisms such as those discussed on the list
become more important. It is likely that with a liberal IANA
policy mechanisms for vendor-specific sd-parameters may still be
important.
Your original proposal as well as the ssh-style proposal do meet these
constraints. However there may be options that better meet your
desires to make messages small. For this reason, I've tried to
explicitly enumerate what I consider the constraints to be.
--Sam
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
>>>>> "Rainer" == Rainer Gerhards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Rainer> Sam, sorry to bother you, but I simply do not know about
Rainer> this:
>> I'm going to request explicit review from the ops directorate.
Rainer> Is this something I must initiate. If so, do you have a
Rainer> pointer how to do that?
No, I will deal with it.
--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
Syslog@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
