It is fairly common to provide a standard mib for basic configuration (least common denominator).
Such a standard mib is often supplemented by a vendor-specific mib to allow users to provide more fine-tuned configuration. Vendors can support a standard configuration request by using default values for all the non-standard attributes, where a standard configuration is adequate for the operator. This has the benefit that an operator can use a standard configuration request across vendors. dbh > -----Original Message----- > From: Rainer Gerhards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 4:15 PM > To: Harrington, David; [iso-8859-1] [iso-8859-1] Magos�nyi > �rp�d; Glenn > Mansfield Keeni > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: syslog-mib > > > Hi, > > > I think the answer to your question is "by defining a > > standard so vendors are encouraged to use a common approach > > rather than everybody using their own vendor-specific > > proprietary approach." > > > > If we were not trying to define an industry standard, I > > wouldn't see the point of doing this work in the IETF. > > I agree with this approach, but I have to admit that in my > point of view this can only provide a basic configuration set > for some typical uses. We, for example, have flexible, > firewall-like rule sets in our products (which consume and > emit syslog but are not limited to this) which can not be > configured by the MIB. > > Anyhow, I think providing a guideline to vendors is > definitely helpful and there are many syslog devices out that > can work perfectly with the provided config info. > > Just my 2 cents... > > Rainer Gerhards > Adiscon > > > >
