Hi Folks,
The discussion came up about the use of the Facilities in the
-syslog-tc-mib document; are they normative or non-normative. David and I
discussed this and have concluded that they are normative to the version
of the protocol that we are now discussing. That may be changed in the
future but we can't predict that. However, the fact remains that the
Facility really can't always pinpoint the source of the content of the
message.
We've had a lot of discussion during the life of this WG about the
Facilities. The WG chose to keep the old Facilities and add more
information in each syslog message through the APP-NAME field in the
header. Even more information can be added through the SDE of "software"
in the "origin" SD-ID. (The APP-NAME is REQUIRED but may be nill, whereas
the "software" SDE is OPTIONAL.) This information should be used to
clarify the origin of the content of the message.
Glenn: Please insert something similar to this in the Introduction part
of -syslog-tc-mib.
The Facilities used in the syslog protocol have been useful in
qualifying the originator of the content of the messages but in
some cases they are not specific enough to explicitly identify the
source. Implementations of the syslog protocol that contain Structured
Data Elements (SDEs) should use these SDEs to clarify the entity that
originated the content of the message.
(Efforts at wordsmithing this will be appreciated. :-)
Also, David is going to find a MIB Doctor to review the next version of
-syslog-tc-mib. If that person finds the document to be clean then we
will have a short WG Last Call, and then we will submit it to the IESG.
Thanks,
Chris
_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
Syslog@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
