On 6/10/14, 3:34 PM, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 03:02:26PM -0400, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
In my personal view, it is clearly outside of our remit to reinvent
logging, no matter whether we like it or not.
Agreed. Not in-scope for I2RS currently.
I want to be very clear that we are not trying to reinvent logging.
What we are trying to do is define _what_ should get logged within the
I2RS scope. _How_ that is logged (syslog, NETCONF, SNMP, etc.) is not
within scope. We don't want a new log protocol. What we want is to
ensure that implementors of I2RS have a model on which to base their
traceability so that vendor X and vendor Y have consistency for a
consumer using I2RS (while perhaps allowing for some extensibility down
the road).
We (the authors) strongly feel there must be some core consistent
elements of I2RS operations that must be logged, and that is all we are
trying to define here.
Where would you suggest such work be done?
As such, the structural specificity of a YANG model (or ABNF) simply
does not belong in this document. The clarity about what fields
will be logged is needed.
Would you agree that if the yang module is dropped that the info model is
sufficiently clear for I2RS purposes?
To us, the YANG module simply represents a way to clearly articulate
what the fields are [syntactically] from the I2RS protocol. It isn't an
attempt to discuss overall transmission or on-disk formats.
Joe
_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
