> On 14 Jul 2015, at 17:25, Clyde Wildes (cwildes) <cwil...@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> Lada,
>
> Thanks for your review.
>
> All was not added to the syslogtypes:severity because that would alter the
> definition of severity as specified by RFC 5424 in Table 2 on page 10. I
> agree that it will simplify the model to do so.
The description of the “severity” leaf says:
When severity is specified the default severity comparison is all messages of
the specified severity and greater are logged unless all is specified which
means all severities are requested.
Isn’t then “debug” equivalent to “all”, i.e. is the “all” option really needed?
>
> Please advise.
I would do a similar thing that you did for facilities: choice between
“severity” (with the type “syslogtypes:severity”) and an empty leaf
"all-severities”.
Lada
>
> Thanks,
>
> Clyde
>
>
>
> On 7/14/15, 6:57 AM, "netmod on behalf of Ladislav Lhotka"
> <netmod-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of lho...@nic.cz> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> the example in sec. 4.3 of draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-04 is
>> invalid: the value of "severity" should be "critical" rather than
>> "syslogtypes:critical". Enums are simple strings, not QNames.
>>
>> Also, I wonder why the type of "severity" is defined (in multiple
>> places) like so:
>>
>> type union {
>> type syslogtypes:severity;
>> type enumeration {
>> enum all {
>> value -1;
>> description
>> "This enum describes the case where all severities
>> are requested.";
>> }
>> }
>>
>> I think the "all" enum can be simply added to the "syslogtypes:severity"
>> enumeration.
>>
>> Lada
>>
>> --
>> Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
>> PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> netmod mailing list
>> netmod@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
--
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
