Hi Folks, Below is a request from Russ Housley (Security AD) for us to produce a brief note about the decisions and action plans resulting from our meeting. Below that is my summary.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 21:25:34 -0500 From: Russ Housley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: WG Session Summary Security Area WG Chairs, In the past, WG chairs have been asked to produce a 2-3 paragraph summary of what happened during their WG sessions. The ADs used these to review status, especially if we were unable to attend the whole session. Some WG chairs have suggested that it would be good to have a summary to remind those that ended up with action items from the WG meeting. For the Seoul IETF, the idea is to make the summary a bit more useful to both the ADs and the community as a whole. The intent is to be able to quickly summarize what decisions the WG made (with more detail to follow in the minutes), remind those with action items that they have action items (instead of waiting with such reminders until just before the next IETF meeting), and help keep the charter milestones more visible to the WG. What we would like to see is a fairly short (no more than a page of text) summary that focuses on important decisions made during the meeting, and what is expected to happen in the 3-4 months before the next meeting. The summary would be sent to the WG list as well as the ADs. I would like to have the summary before the SAAG session. Russ ----my response---- Discussion and Decisions - The WG decided that the fundamental format for syslog messages needed to be addressed in a separate document rather than being lumped into the syslog-sign ID http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-syslog-sign-13.txt >From this, Rainer Gerhards has been working on that document with much enthusiasm and progress. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-syslog-protocol-03.txt The consensus in the room agreed with the consensus on the mailing list so this will be our official direction. - The WG also asked that the transport mapping of syslog be addressed in a separate document. This document will REQUIRE a mapping of syslog (as currently defined in Rainer's ID) to UDP and will leave the door open for other efforts to try their own mappings. Anton Okmianski has written a draft of this document but did not get it submitted before the cutoff date: http://www.employees.org/~lonvick/transport/draft-ietf-syslog-transport-udp-00.html The tricky part of this will be that syslog-protocol and syslog-transport-udp reference each other and will need to be submitted together. I don't really believe that this is going to be a problem. A revision of this document will probably include a reference to DTLS when that is available. The consensus in the room agreed with the consensus on the mailing list so this will be our official direction. - When these documents are finished, it will be an easy edit to get the syslog-sign ID to conform with the syslog-protocol document. It may then be sent around to Last Call as the mechanisms defined in the ID have the general consensus of the WG. - Glenn Mansfield polled the WG and found that the consensus was to remove the "configuration tables" from the syslog-device-mib ID http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-syslog-device-mib-05.txt I believe that this was what Bert Wijnen was suggesting at our last meeting, and I also believe that this has consensus in the WG at this time. The room was polled with no objection to this. Actions Items - Rainer will continue to progress syslog-protocol. - Anton will continue to progress syslog-transport-udp. - Jon will wait until after those documents are submitted to the IESG and will then revise syslog-sign to reflect the direction taken in syslog-sign and syslog-transport-udp. - Glenn will continue to progress syslog-device-mib. Longer Term - The WG asked to include a document on "internationalizing" syslog messages. Rainer started that but found that it brought up issues that needed to be addressed in the base syslog protocol. The WG concurred so it is on the back burner until the syslog-protocol becomes stable. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-syslog-international-00.txt - Once we get the syslog-protocol document to a finished state, I can ask Marshall Rose and Darren New to look at revising RFC 3195. The only wildcard in that is that it is being considered as a transport for the Netconf work. I invited the chairs of that WG to speak at the upcoming syslog WG meeting if they had anything they'd like to share, but they declined. ---end Thanks, Chris
