Hello Albert, At 05:32 PM 11/10/2001 +0100, albert mietus wrote: >> A few days ago, I got a note from David Harrington of the SNMPv3 >> Working Group suggesting that we think about a MIB specification >> for syslog. I received no objections from our ADs when I asked >> them about this, so perhaps we should think about it. > >This is really funny, and interessting too! > >Just a few day ago, I have had ask some people to define a SNMP interface to >our logging infra structure, bassed on syslog (and more).
Excellent. :-) Then you will be a good participant in the review process. >Chris, again I do ask to give an estimate on the timeframe. >To use that RFC, I do need it before the end of this year (!) (and a stable >draft before:-) >We have to finisch the requerments for the system this year (but probally, I >may reference to a RFC that is draft and will become available Q1 2002. That's a tough question. I _think_ that we are on the right track with this effort. A few points were raised over the past few weeks about consolidating a few of the parameters from their base64 representation but no one has objected to the overall scheme. We also have to address the format specification. I sent some notes to Jon over the weekend about that. Honestly, I think that if we focus on this, we can get a stable ID by the end of the year and can submit it to the IESG. I will say, however, that we are subject to the will of the WG and we will follow procedure on this. >I can't give details (now) on our plans, but I can say that I need them for >the dutch tax "computingcentre"; which means I will be implemented/working >on > 50K systems (from routers, NT, Unix upto mainframe:-) Nice, isn't it! Where can I get a job like that? :-) >Hope, our timeframes can be simulair. I believe so. It's going to help if you, and all others, can review the changes quickly. Having you implement this in working code is going to help immensely. Many thanks, Chris
