Security ADs,

Having passed a WG Last Call, draft-ietf-syslog-protocol-14.txt is ready
for AD review.

[WG]   syslog
[I-D]  draft-ietf-syslog-protocol-14.txt
[Qver] draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-05.txt
[Shep] Chris Lonvick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

The WG last call turned up no additional comments or discussion.

   1.a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet
        Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready
        to forward to the IESG for publication?


   1.b) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members
        and key non-WG members?  Do you have any concerns about the
        depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

Adequate review has occurred from WG members, and it has been reviewed
by others.  I am satisfied about the level of review.

   1.c) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
        particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
        complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)?


   1.d) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that
        you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of?  For
        example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the
        document, or have concerns whether there really is a need for
        it.  In any event, if your issues have been discussed in the WG
        and the WG has indicated it that it still wishes to advance the
        document, detail those concerns in the write-up.


   1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
        represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
        others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
        agree with it?

There is strong consensus to publish this document.

   1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
        discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
        separate email to the Responsible Area Director.


   1.g) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all of the
        ID nits? (see

Section 9.1 and 9.2 state that the IANA must "maintain" a registry.  This
needs to be changed to state that the IANA is requested to "create" a
registry for the described values.  The author can make this minor change
when working with the RFC Editor.

   1.h) Is the document split into normative and informative references?
        Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not
        also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
        (note here that the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with
        normative references to IDs, it will delay publication until all
        such IDs are also ready for publication as RFCs.)

The references are split into normative and informational references.
The document is dependent upon draft-ietf-syslog-transport-udp-05.txt
but that is being submitted along with this document.

   1.ijk) Write-up section:

        *    Technical Summary

This document describes the syslog protocol, which is used to convey
event notification messages.  This protocol utilizes a layered
architecture, which allows the use of any number of transport
protocols for transmission of syslog messages.  It also provides a
message format that allows vendor-specific extensions to be provided
in a structured way.

        *    Working Group Summary

The consensus of the working group was to publish this as a
standards-track document.

        *    Protocol Quality

It is possible that there are implementations of this document in
various stages of completion at this time.  Some equipment vendors have
indicated interest in supporting this document, and some non-commercial
implementations are also expected.

Syslog-sec mailing list

Reply via email to