Hi, Should we add something about TLS transport?
1, Page 9, trasport, should add TLS, may add DTLS and BEEP 2, Page 10, syslogDefaultTransport's defaul value is UDP, TLS? But I think it's UDP My 0.01$ Thanks! Miao > -----Original Message----- > From: Glenn M. Keeni [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2006 2:03 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Syslog] MIB document decision > > Dave, > Thanks for the review. I am in full agreement with the > observations. > This > present document belongs to the 3164 era. Now that the > protocol, udp documents are stable, it is time for an update. > The following are TBDs > 1. Update terminology to bring it incline with the > protocol document. > 2. Shift the base reference to the protocol document from RFC3164 > 3. Make the defaults specified in the DEFVALs consistent with the > protocol, udp, tls documents > 4. Make the document RFC4181-compliant, idnits-compliant > [ref. draft-harrington-text-mib-doc-template-00.txt] > a. Add references for IMPORTS > b. Add a paragraph on relationship to other MIBs section > 5. Review > a. Is syslDevCCtlConfFileName implementation-neutral? > b. Could syslDevOpsLastError contain sensitive > information, such > as passwords or user names? What will be the impact ? > c. Is the management functionality adequate? > 6. Editorial nits. > MO=> managed objects > 7. Make the changes and submit the revised I-D > > 1-4, 6-7 is doable. I will do it. I will look for WG input on item 5. > Particularly on 5c. > > Cheers > > Glenn > David Harrington wrote: > > 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 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Syslog mailing list > [email protected] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog > _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
