I too have looked at proprietary syslog MIB modules and have noticed how much simpler they are. For myself, the essential part of a syslog MIB is the statistics and that only for the device in which it resides.
I would not throw away the other parts of the current MIB module, just make the COMPLIANCE optional. Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Harrington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Chris Lonvick'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 11:58 PM Subject: RE: [Syslog] Documenting the configuration of syslog > Hi, > > [as contributor] > Traditionally, standards are based on some level of agreement across > multiple implementations about what should be standardized. > > I have looked at syslog MIB modules from multiple vendors and have not > found any that model the same concepts that the current syslog MIB > models. Our current Devcice MIB is about configuring and monitoring > the applications that use syslog. I have concerns about having this WG > produce a MIB module that nobody seems to want. The industry doesn't > seem to have "rough consensus" that this is the MIB that is needed. > > Vendor-specific MIB modules seems to focus on one of two approaches > towards monitoring syslog activity - modeling a single syslog daemon, > or capturing syslog messages in a MIB table so the logged information > can also be accessed via SNMP. > > My limited research indicates that syslog.conf is the defacto standard > for configuration of syslog. I wonder if there is enough similarity > between vendors to develop a standard for those aspects related to the > work of this WG. > > dbh > _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
