Hi WG, in order to provide feedback to Sam, I would like to know what you current view of syslog-protocol is. I am asking especially those people that objected it in the meeting. Please share your concerns with us, because only this allows us to drive that thing forward. I have absolutely no problem with changes, but we need to know that people think there is need to change.
So, please let the WG know any concerns you might have with syslog-protocol and/or the work we have carried out so far. Many thanks, Rainer > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sam Hartman > Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 8:13 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Syslog] formal Consultation prior to concluding the > working group > > > > Greetings. I'd like to draw yo;ur attention to section 4 of RFC 2418. > > This section requires area directors to consult with a working group > prior to concluding that working group. At the meeting in Vancouver I > started such a consultation by noting that once the next set of > milestones is approved I would conclude the working group if these > milestones are missed. > > However Rainer Gerhards's messages call into question whether we can > even come to sufficient consensus to proceed at all. > > As such, I'm formally requesting input on the following questions: > > 1) Is there sufficient consensus on the direction of the work > that this working group can continue? > > 2) Is there another charter under which the working group would better > be able to make progress? > > > Please Submit comments to me and preferably also to the list by > December 1, 2005. > > _______________________________________________ > Syslog mailing list > Syslog@lists.ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog > _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
