On 6/10/14, 3:51 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 03:34:34PM -0400, 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.
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?
I have been silently following this discussion and I do not have a
strong opinion but I think it might help to understand that
a) NETCONF has a notification mechanism (RFC 5277), and
b) SYSLOG has in its standards-track version support for carrying
structured data (RFC 5424).
Thanks, Juergen. I was aware, and I feel that once we decide on what
gets logged, then we can certainly use mechanisms like these down the
road to answer the "how" question.
Joe
_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
