Clyde As Kent says, I would prefer to see only one XXXX with others being YYYY or some such.
Further, I think that this RFC xxxx to be should be in the list of References. Adding it there would then solve my additional problem of which I-D you have in mind. There are two relating to key management and neither are titled Keystore Management:-( I can guess which you mean but I do not think that I should be guessing! Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Clyde Wildes (cwildes)" <[email protected]> To: "t.petch" <[email protected]>; "Kent Watsen" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 5:53 PM Subject: Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-15 > Tom, > > The agreement was that I should use “xxxx” until the two unapproved RFCs that the model depends on are assigned numbers. > > RFC xxxx: Keystore Management > RFC xxxx: Transport Layer Security (TLS) Client"; > > Imported are: > > import ietf-tls-client { > prefix tlsc; > } > > import ietf-keystore { > prefix ks; > } > > > Have numbers been assigned? > > Thanks, > > Clyde > > On 8/9/17, 4:32 AM, "t.petch" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Clyde > > You use xxxx as a placeholder for three different RFC and two of these > do not appear AFAICT in the list of References. > > This might be a challenge for the RFC Editor. > > Tom Petch > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Clyde Wildes (cwildes)" <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 6:48 PM > > > > Hi Alex, > > > > Answers inline as [clyde]… > > > > On 7/17/17, 4:20 PM, "netmod on behalf of Alex Campbell" > <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: > > > > I am considering to implement the data model in this draft. > (dependent on business priorities of course) > > I have reviewed this draft and found the following issues. > > > > * I see pattern-match is specified to use POSIX 1003.2 regular > expressions. This is presumably for compatibility with existing > implementations; however it is inconsistent with most of YANG (which is > specified to use XPath regular expressions) - unless these are the same. > > > > [clyde] I believe that my answer in the other thread explains why we > used Posix 1003.2 – it is commonly used. > > > > * pattern-match is inside the facility-filter container; common > sense says this is wrong as pattern-match has nothing to do with > facilities. > > > > [clyde] I will move pattern-match up one level in the next version of > the draft. Thanks for catching this! > > > > * The advanced-compare container groups together two nodes that > share a common "when" and "if-feature" statement, but don't seem to have > any semantic relation to each other. Are there general guidelines on > when to use a container? > > > > [clyde] The confusion may come as a result of the when clause > appearing before the if-feature clause which is set by the IETF > statement order recommendation. > > > > The when construct was suggested by Martin Björklund as a way of > solving the case that advanced-compare does not apply for the ‘all ’ and > ‘none’ case. > > > > The if-feature applies to the entire container – it is either > supported or not. > > > > * The advanced-compare container has a description starting with > "This leaf ..." even though it is not a leaf. > > > > [clyde] This will be fixed in the next draft. > > > > * The examples are missing <facility-filter> nodes. > > > > [clyde] This will be fixed in the next draft. > > > > * Perhaps there should be more consistent terminology for > receivers of syslog messages; both "collectors" and "actions" are used > in the draft. RFC 5424 uses "collector" for the ultimate recipient of a > log message - which might not be applicable, because the sending system > has no idea whether the receiving system is a collector or a relay. > > > > [clyde] The definition of “collector” in RFC 5424 is: A "collector" > gathers syslog content for further analysis. > > > > actions relate to the “further analysis” taken by the “collector”. > > > > “Collectors” appears in the model under the remote action and I > believe the usage is correct: > > container remote { > > if-feature remote-action; > > description > > "This container describes the configuration parameters for > > forwarding syslog messages to remote relays or > collectors."; > > > > I will revise the description of these terms in the next draft. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Clyde > > > > ________________________________________ > > From: netmod <[email protected]> on behalf of Kent Watsen > <[email protected]> > > Sent: Saturday, 8 July 2017 6:34 a.m. > > > > _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
