Hi Clyde, The chairs were discussing the HISTORIC reference to RFC 6587. As we understand it, RFC 6587 was actually originally published as a HISTORIC document to accommodate Security area concerns. Apparently, Benoit was AD at the time, so he may recall. The IETF took special effort to publish RFC 6587 anyway, likely due to TCP being in common use. Anyway, we're wondering, must this document have a normative reference to RFC 6587? - could it be made Informational instead? Is understanding RFC 6587 necessary to implement the syslog draft?
We also discussed the normative references to the keystore-and-friends drafts. As it stands, my shepherd write-up is going to have to call these out as unstable dependencies. I know that it was discussed before, but would you have any appetite to revisit having TLS in the first version of this module? Perhaps it could be picked it up in a bis? When can you post an update? Would you rather us appoint an Editor to help get it done sooner? I think that we've been in this post-LC phase for nearly four months now... Kent // shepherd ===== original message ===== Kent My request for a reference for Posix hs been fixed in -19. Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kent Watsen" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 4:59 PM > Clyde, > > This draft still isn't passing idnits. I provided the link to idnits previously, but here it is again: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_tools_idnits&d=DwICAw&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=vB8Genu4I7nOu9B7lKz5mWWYCBuuHwmgn0HIzePAk6Q&s=HHa4Kg7ZoXOz6uC9VkiT_-jMeGdW9Kbfo1CydiT4bM8&e=. Below is the idnits output for -19 with inlined comments. > > PS: I didn't also checked the other issues we're tracking, but will when we get past these idnits issues. > > Kent > > > ===== START ===== > idnits 2.15.00 > > /tmp/draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-19.txt: > > Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__trustee.ietf.org_license-2Dinfo&d=DwICAw&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=vB8Genu4I7nOu9B7lKz5mWWYCBuuHwmgn0HIzePAk6Q&s=L95k8rDeNKaSZXkCpqx2hwzmGDw8trmzmYOT0SLU-fQ&e=): > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- > > No issues found here. > > Checking nits according to https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_id-2Dinfo_1id-2Dguidelines.txt&d=DwICAw&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=vB8Genu4I7nOu9B7lKz5mWWYCBuuHwmgn0HIzePAk6Q&s=wrmo4jVcBb7-_LFH7ty-TOpG80tfe3pWbfCSFZaT6eY&e=: > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- > > No issues found here. > > Checking nits according to > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_id-2Dinfo_checklist&d=DwICAw&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=vB8Genu4I7nOu9B7lKz5mWWYCBuuHwmgn0HIzePAk6Q&s=_seSaCKfzxYeb3b1tfX2RqUk7CKbOsRr3pRVJrQ8lEc&e= > : > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- > > ** There is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the longest one > being 1 character in excess of 72. > > Kent: this isn't a big deal IMO, but if it's easy to fix, it saves the RFC editor a step later on. > > > Miscellaneous warnings: > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- > > == Line 352 has weird spacing: '...gorithm ide...' > > Kent: this is fine. it is in a tree diagram. > > > == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if > it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph with > a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? > > (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the > ID-Checklist requires). > > Kent: I can't find the error. Looking at the xml, it is verbatim what I have in the zerotouch draft. my guess is that this is a tooling error and we should ignore it. > > > -- The document date (January 12, 2018) is 4 days in the past. Is this > intentional? > > Kent: this is fine, it is intentional. > > > Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- > > (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references > to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) > > == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-netconf-keystore' is defined on line 1386, > but no explicit reference was found in the text > > Kent: looking at the XML, I see that the entire paragraph uses '[' and ']' as opposed to <xref .../>. Please fix this. > > > == Unused Reference: 'RFC7895' is defined on line 1456, but no explicit > reference was found in the text > > Kent: looking at the XML, I see two instances of an unwanted "/>" string. For instance: <xref target="RFC7895"/>/> Please fix this. > > > ** Downref: Normative reference to an Historic RFC: RFC 6587 > > Kent: hmmm, what's going on here? This YANG module is providing an ability to configure the "tcp" transport, even though the IESG made that ability historic in 2012 (see IESG Note below). Searching online, it looks like Cisco supports this, but Juniper does not. What about other vendors, is it widely supported? Was this discussed in the WG? Answering my own question, searching my local mailbox, I don't see this ever being discussed before, other than Martin questioning if it was a good idea in Mar 2016 (no response). Please start a thread on the list to get WG opinion if it's okay for the draft to proceed as is or not. Here's the IESG Note from RFC 6587: > > IESG Note > > The IESG does not recommend implementing or deploying syslog over > plain tcp, which is described in this document, because it lacks the > ability to enable strong security [RFC3365]. > > Implementation of the TLS transport [RFC5425] is recommended so that > appropriate security features are available to operators who want to > deploy secure syslog. Similarly, those security features can be > turned off for those who do not want them. > > > > > > Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). > > Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about > the items above. > ===== END ===== > > Thanks, > Kent // shepherd > > > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_netmod&d=DwICAw&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=vB8Genu4I7nOu9B7lKz5mWWYCBuuHwmgn0HIzePAk6Q&s=CoIDcNyLYh6-N6JmL2uSR2Mm2Uh1kAOOpYP8YDb0mmc&e= _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
