Hi, I agree the terminology in the MIB document differs from that in -protocol- and should be updated to match the WG consensus on terminology.
Here are a few things I spotted that should be fixed or checked: The references in the MIB are to RFC3164, not the current -protocol- document produced by the WG. Since -protocol- will be a standard while RFC3164 is informational, we should reference the standard documents. (If it is useful to compare the RFC3164 attributes to the -protocol- attributes, I recommend a section that shows how they map/compare. There are DEFVAL default values; are these connsistent with the new document? Use existing textual-conventions (such as transportDomain) rather than SyslogTransport ? Is syslDevCCtlConfFileName implementation-neutral? MOs should be spelled out as managed objects. syslDevOpsLastError - could this contain sen sitive information, such as passwords or user names? Has the MIB been checked against RFC4181? MIB Doctors will expect a section entitled "Relationship to other MIB Modules". See ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/internet-drafts/draft-harrington-tex t-mib-doc-template-00.txt for further advice about what should be in the document. The documents that contain the IMPORTS must be cited in text outside the MIB module. The document does not pass the id-nits check by http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/idnits.pyht It would be good to make this RFC4181-compliant and idnits-compliant before we start the WGLC. The document should also be compared to the functionality described in -protocol-, -udp-, and -tls- documents to make sure the defaults are consistent, and the management functionality adequate. David Harrington [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
