On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 01:06:15AM +0200, Chris Lonvick (clonvick) wrote: > We need to hear from others. IIRC, the concepts were getting a bit > difficult to follow and not everyone was nodding their heads > together on this. > > All: please respond with your comments on this. The default is to > exclude items from the charter unless we feel that there is a strong > commitment to advance a document.
My problem with this document has been that was overly ambitious and at the same time too simplistic. For example, the goal seems to be to model sender, receiver, and relays in the same way (the ambitious part - and earlier versions also include much more configuration objects) which at the same time a syslog server is restricted to exactly one transport protocol and one binding address. I would be OK with this MIB work if the MIB module can be reduced to essentially a monitoring MIB (no read-create control table). I also do not think the insights the MIB currently tries to provide about relaying is needed. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
