On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 03:06:46PM -0400, David Harrington wrote: > I would like to do a poll: > > 1) Should these textual conventions be accepted as they are?
I am fine with the *nix biased values since this is where syslog is coming from and extremely widely deployed. However, I have no clue what noMap(99) is nor do I understand any of the words after the first sentence in the DESCRIPTION clause of SyslogFacility. > 2) Would this WG like to see us define a normative set or a > non-normative set of facilities and severities? Are you opening up section 6.2.1 of <draft-ietf-syslog-protocol-20.txt>? Why not use the same "creative wordings" for this ID also in the MIB? This makes things consistent (and perhaps leads to a de-facto standard). Or is the proposal to make the TC document purely Informational? > 3) Whether normative or non-normative, which is more important? > efficient allocation of the limited facility values, or backwards > compatibility with existing (and historic) implementations? I assume compatibility; otherwise the protocol design could have used a very different format and enlarged the number spaces. /js PS: I am a long time Unix user and somewhat biased. ;-) -- 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 Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
