Dan, Thanks. Comments are inline.
Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > The document is in good shape, it compiles cleanly and passes idnits > checks. > > I have a few editorial comments: > > 1. I do not believe that it is necessary to carry all the duplicated > text in the MIB module as commented text, as it does not provide any > significant implementation information. I will agree with this. Are there any other opinions / suggestions on this issue ? > Syslog-WG > > 2. It would be good to mention in the TC definition or by using the > REFERENCE clause that the enumerated values replicate the values defined > respectively in tables 1 and 2 of [RFCPROT]. OK. > 3. The document carries the standard security considerations section for > documents defining Textual Conventions. This text states correctly that > the TCs themselves do not introduce security concerns, but in this case > most probably objects defined by using these TCs will. To be on the > strict side I would add a phrase that says 'Objects defined using the > TCs defined in this document may introduce security issues, and the user > of these TCs should read the security considerations section of > [RFCPROT].' OK. > I will update the document and post a revised draft on the 16th of January. Glenn _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
