Hi,
I have reviewed syslog-tc-mib and have some comments.
1. wording
/in general will/will usually/
/among other things//
/-- Will be assigned by IANA//
2. The description of SyslogFacility should include the text currently
found in a comment
" -- Some of the operating system daemons and processes are
-- traditionally designated by the Facility values given
below.
-- Daemons and processes that do not have an explicitly
-- assigned Facility may use any of the "local use"
Facilities
-- or they may use the "user-level" Facility."
/of the//
3. The descripiton of SyslogFacility should state that "The range of
this TC cannot be extended beyond (23), because it is used to
calculate priority, which is the product of facility and severity."
4. I think the descripton clause for facility should include the
following from the overview: "The facility codes have been useful in
qualifying the originator of the
content of the messages but in some cases they are not specific
enough to explicitly identify the source. Implementations of the
syslog protocol [RFCPROT] may also use Structured Data Elements
(SDEs) to clarify the entity that originated
the content of the message."
(I recommend this because MIB modules are often shipped without the
surrounding document text, and we want users to see this information.
I also condensed the text slightly from the comment.)
5. The descripiton of SyslogSeverity should state that "The range of
this TC cannot be extended beyond (7), because it is used to calculate
priority, which is the product of facility and severity."
6. The decription in SyslogSeverity should explain that "the
definitions for each severity are not clearly defined, and
traditionally the daemon or process chooses the severity to report
based on information it has available." I recommend adding a REFERENCE
clause to the discussion of severity values in RFCPROT A.3.
7. I think the descripton clause for severity would benefit from
including the following:
"The severity codes have been useful in qualifying the importance of
the
content of the messages. Implementations of the
syslog protocol [RFCPROT] may also use Structured Data Elements
(SDEs) to further clarify the importance of the content."
8. There is a NOTE that says PROT will be replaced; it does not
identify who should do the replacement. I suggest updating the ID
number to 23, and turning the NOTE into an RFC editor's note.
9. I have checked the MIB module using libsmi, and the document using
idnits, and the document looks good.
David Harrington
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
Syslog@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
