Hi
There was a typo in the earlier mail. It referred to "item (c)"
instead of item (3). Resending the comments.
Glenn
+------------------------------------------------------------+
1. Page 4.
"syslog content" is the management information contained
in a syslog message.
a. Are we sure about this "management information"?
It seems to be a restriction on the scope of the
information that can be carried in a syslog message.
I suggest that we drop the term "management". It
does not add any value but raises several questions.
b. What is the difference in a "syslog content" and
"syslog message"
Do we need a distinction?
2. The "syslog application" layer handles generation,
interpretation, routing and storage of syslog messages.
"handles generation" is confusing. Then the
syslog message will first appear at this layer.
But it appears before ( on top of) this layer
More about this in (3)
3. I do not agree with the first layer "content" .
On page-5 the "functions" of the layers are given, the
functions of the "content" layer are not given.
It is not clear what abstraction is intended in a layer.
But whatever that is - layer-1 (syslog content) and
layer-2(syslog application) do not belong to the same
genre. Layer-1 does not belong there.
4. On page-6
The boxes represent syslog-enabled applications.
a. Is a syslog-enabled application not a syslog
application ?
The boxes in Diagram-2 are labelled "collector" ,
"originator" which are syslog applications.
[The following comments are not related to recent changes
in the document. But, they are relevant and will need to be
addressed some time. ]
5. If, syslog-mib-tc is being published then we probably do
not need to have the paragraphs other than the first one in
section 6.2.1
6. 6.2.5 APP-NAME
The APP-NAME field SHOULD identify the device or application
that originated the message.
We need to explain "device" or drop the term. Is a host a
device?
+----------------------------------------------------------+
Chris Lonvick wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> This note from Sam to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for those of you who don't subscribe.
>
> Thanks,
> Chris
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 19:48:25 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [Syslog] draft-ietf-syslog-protocol-21.txt: section 3 contains
> new text
> to address ietf last call comments
>
>
>
> I'd like to draw the attention of the community to section 3 of
> draft-ietf-syslog-protocol-21.txt. This text contains text and a
> clarified model of the various layers in the syslog architecture and
> new terminology for the parties.
>
> I believe this is responsive to the ietf last call comments and I
> believe the changes have been discussed sufficiently in the WG.
>
> I am not asking for a new last call but I do want to make people aware
> of the text. If people believe a new last call is necessary please
> let me know now. Currently the document is scheduled on the Thursday,
> June 21 telechat.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Syslog mailing list
> Syslog@lists.ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
>
> _______________________________________________
> Syslog mailing list
> Syslog@lists.ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
Syslog@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
Syslog@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
