Juergen,
Thanks. I would be more than happy to reduce the MIB to
essentially a monitoring MIB and focusing on essentially sender
and receiver functions. That is where we started:-)
The point about multiple transports for syslog servers
is interesting. Lets discuss, if this remains on the charter.
Glenn
Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> 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.
_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
