Hi Joe, Thank you for your reply! We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9742). Once we receive approvals from all authors listed on the AUTH48 status page, we will move this document forward in the publication process.
Thank you! RFC Editor/mc > On Mar 19, 2025, at 9:39 PM, Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Approved from me. Thanks, Madison! > Joe > From: Madison Church <[email protected]> > Date: Wednesday, March 19, 2025 at 11:57 > To: Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[email protected]>, Mahesh Jethanandani > <[email protected]>, [email protected]<[email protected]>, > [email protected]<[email protected]> > Cc: RFC Editor <[email protected]>, > [email protected]<[email protected]>, [email protected] > <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, Warren > Kumari <[email protected]>, > [email protected]<[email protected]> > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9742 <draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-33> for > your review > Hi Authors, > > Joe - Thank you for your reply! We have updated the document as requested. > > All - Please review the updated files and let us know if you approve the > document in its current form. Once we receive approvals from each person > listed on the AUTH48 status page, we will move forward in the publication > process. > > Updated files (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742.xml > > Diff files: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742-diff.html (comprehensive diff) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes > only) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by > side) > > For the AUTH48 status page, see: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9742 > > Thank you! > RFC Editor/mc > > > On Mar 18, 2025, at 3:58 AM, Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Madison, it chatting with our AD, we would like to make a few small changes > > to the text to add clarity. Essentially, this involves changing some > > instance of “configuration” to “management”. > > First, the title of the document becomes, “A YANG Data Model for Syslog > > Management”. Then, in the abstract: > > OLD: > > This document defines a YANG data model for the configuration of a syslog > > process. It is intended that this data model be used by vendors who > > implement syslog collectors in their systems. > > NEW: > > This document defines a YANG data model for the management of a syslog > > process. It is intended that this data model be used by vendors who > > implement syslog collectors in their systems. > > Then, in Section 1: > > OLD: > > This document defines a YANG [RFC7950] configuration data model > > NEW: > > This document defines a YANG [RFC7950] data model > > Then, in the YANG module in Section 5.1: > > OLD: > > This module contains a collection of YANG definitions for syslog > > configuration. > > NEW: > > This module contains a collection of YANG definitions for syslog > > management. > > Joe > > From: Madison Church <[email protected]> > > Date: Monday, March 17, 2025 at 15:24 > > To: Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[email protected]>, Mahesh Jethanandani > > <[email protected]>, [email protected]<[email protected]>, > > [email protected]<[email protected]> > > Cc: RFC Editor <[email protected]>, [email protected] > > <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, > > [email protected] <[email protected]>, Warren Kumari > > <[email protected]>, [email protected] > > <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9742 <draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-33> for > > your review > > Hi Authors, > > > > Joe - Thank you for the confirmation! > > > > All - Now that our questions have been addressed, please review the > > document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make changes once it > > has been published as an RFC. Contact us with any further updates or with > > your approval of the document in its current form. We will await approvals > > from each author prior to moving forward in the publication process. > > > > Updated files have been posted here (please refresh): > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742.txt > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742.pdf > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742.xml > > > > Updated diff files: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742-diff.html (comprehensive edits) > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 > > changes only) > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by > > side) > > > > For the AUTH48 status page, see: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9742 > > > > Thank you, > > RFC Editor/mc > > > > > On Mar 14, 2025, at 1:53 AM, Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > [rfced] Thank you for pointing this out (and apologies for missing this > > > earlier). We have updated the Security Considerations section to match > > > what appears in 8407bis [1]. > > > > > > Additionally, please note that we have removed the following text from > > > the Security Considerations to match 8407bis. If this text should be > > > re-added to the paragraph (or if there are any further updates needed), > > > please let us know. > > > [JMC] You know, I don’t think it’s needed in light of the boilerplate > > > text indicating an impact to operations if these data nodes are not > > > protected. I’m good with the sec considerations as they read now. > > > Joe -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
