tom.petch wrote: > Glenn > > One issue that occurred to me that I do not think has surfaced before is the > nature of references in the MIB module which must make sense outside the > wrapper > of the RFC, so that [RFCUDPX], [RFCTLSX] and [RFCBEEP] won't do. > . > Look at how this is handled in, for example, draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-mib-09, > RFC4273 > or RFC4750.
Thanks. Glenn > > Tom Petch > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Glenn M. Keeni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 9:43 AM > Subject: Re: [Syslog] Mib issues and resolutions > > >> Hi, >> David asked for a "quick summary" for the WG. I have prepared >> a document which is not quick and is not much of a summary. >> It provides >> - pointers to the mails where issues were raised, >> - the originator of the mail, >> - the main issues, >> - the action and, >> - the conclusion. >> It will be useful if you use this "summary" along with some mail >> archive tool (the wg archive covers only the last few days, >> you may try http://www.cysol.co.jp/contrib/syslogmib/threads.html) >> Please note: >> a. It covers only discussions related to the MIB, issues >> related to other documents are not covered. >> b. It covers the period starting from the WGLC >> c. The list of main issues for each mail is not exhaustive. >> The positions of individuals and the pros and cons are not >> included. >> Please refer to the original the mail if you are looking >> for a detailed list. >> Please let me know if I have missed some threads. >> >> Cheers >> >> Glenn >> <snip> >> ======================================================== >> >> [Syslog] Working Group Last Call: syslog-mib document, David B Harrington >> Re: [Syslog] Working Group Last Call: syslog-mib document, tom.petch >> >> The "subject" of the MIB => "Entity" >> One or more syslog entities per MIB ? => Multiple entities. >> >> RE: [Syslog] MIB document decision, Alexander Clemm (alex) >> To handle SyslogSign or not. >> WG polled. No response. => Leave for later >> ( Separate Document) >> >> [Syslog] WGLC results : Syslog-MIB, Glenn M. Keeni >> [Syslog] RE: Request for Reviewers - draft-ietf-syslog-device-mib-09.txt, > Wijnen, Bert (Bert) >> SMICng errors => Done >> MIB nits => Done >> syslog-transport over tls -> discussed => revised >> >> [Syslog] Dbh Review of -mib-09, part 1, David Harrington >> ID-nits >> Terminology: sender, receiver, relay -> Discussed => Entity >> SyslogSeverity: "other" -> Discussed >> syslog-transport -> Discussed => revise >> syslEntOpsMsgsIgnored: unclear -> Discussed => revise >> syslEntOpsLastError: unclear -> Discussed => revise >> syslEntOpsReference: unclear -> Discussed => revise >> >> [Syslog] Dbh re-Review of -mib-11, part 1, David Harrington >> Terminology: sender, receiver, relay -> Discussed => Entity >> SyslogSeverity: "other" usage ? -> Discussed >> SyslogService: UDP/TCP ? -> Discussed >> Descriptive Indices -> Discussed => Use Description MOs >> syslEntOpsMsgsIgnored: Allowed Specs? -> Discussed >> syslEntOpsLastError: unclear -> Clarified => revise >> >> [Syslog] Dbh re-review of Mib-11-, part 2, David B Harrington >> transportAddressType/Service unclear -> Discussed >> syslogEntityControlStorageType -> Discussed => revise >> notifications: Description unclear -> Discussed => revise >> notifications: mandatory/optional ? -> Clarified => optional >> transport security: discuss ? -> Discussed => comment withdrawn >> >> [Syslog] -mib-, part 3, David Harrington >> Add congestion avoidance ? -> No reaction from WG >> >> [Syslog] Review of Mib-10, part 1, David Harrington >> mainly ID, MIB nits => fix >> >> [Syslog] Mib -10-, part 2, David Harrington >> Terminology -> Discussed earlier >> One or more syslog entities per MIB ? -> Discussed earlier >> >> [Syslog] Review of mib-11, part 3, David Harrington >> Purpose of Default parameters -> Explained >> >> [Syslog] Syslog-mib-11, David Harrington >> One or more syslog entities per MIB ? -> Discussed => multiple entities >> >> [Syslog] Syslog-mib-12, David Harrington >> To WG: Fig1, Terminology >> >> Re: [Syslog] Submission of draft-ietf-syslog-device-mib-12.txt, Juergen > Schoenwaelder >> Transport Domain matter -> Discussed => Revise >> >> [Syslog] Rfc3164 and mib, David Harrington >> RFC3164 to be obsoleted => Revise >> >> [Syslog] MIB Issue #1 - one or multiple? Seeking consensus, David Harrington >> One or multiple entity per MIB -> Discussed => Multiple entities >> >> [Syslog] MIB Issue #2: document terminology., David Harrington >> Terminology -> Discussed >> >> [Syslog] Mib-13, David Harrington >> "Entity" unnecessary abstraction -> Explained => Waiting for WG input >> restructure mib tree => Revise >> Fig-1 unclear ? Incomplete ? -> Explained >> MsgsSent ? => Add MO >> unclear/incomplete Descriptions -> Explained => Revise >> >> entity `Re: [Syslog] Mib-13, tom.petch >> Entity vs application -> Discussed >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
