Hi, "Clyde Wildes (cwildes)" <cwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > Any > > My comments inline as [clyde2]… > > From: Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> > Date: Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 8:24 AM > To: "Clyde Wildes (cwildes)" <cwil...@cisco.com> > Cc: Alex Campbell <alex.campb...@aviatnet.com>, "netmod@ietf.org" > <netmod@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for > draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-11 > > > > On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Clyde Wildes (cwildes) > <cwil...@cisco.com<mailto:cwil...@cisco.com>> wrote: > Hi Andy, > > Thanks for taking the time to review the model. > > My comments are inline as [clyde]… > > From: netmod <netmod-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org>> > on behalf of Andy Bierman > <a...@yumaworks.com<mailto:a...@yumaworks.com>> > Date: Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 3:04 PM > To: Alex Campbell <alex.campb...@aviatnet.com> > Cc: "netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>" > <netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>> > Subject: Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for > draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-11 > > Hi, > > I am also considering an implementation. > I share the same concerns that Alex has brought up. > > Some detailed comments: > > 1) /syslog/actions: seems like everything is in this container. > Why is it needed? Seems like it could be removed as it serves no > purpose > > [clyde] Although this model is currently designated as config only, we > could add operational data and rpc leaves in the future. The actions > container is to future-proof the model. > > 2) 8 features: the granularity seems wrong. The main container for > each section > should have its own if-feature > /console > /buffer > /file > /remote > > [clyde] We have gone back and forth on this…some have complained that > there are too many features. I will be happy to add a feature for each > action. Note that we studied the implementation of each action by six > vendors including Linux and opted to not add features for actions > implemented by at least 3 vendors. Vendors not implementing an action > could create a deviation.
This is not a good usage of deviations. Deviations should be used as a last resort by vendors that cannot comply with the standard. Designing the usage of deviations into the overall solution is not a good idea. These should really be features, even if the number of features becomes higher. > I prefer 1 mandatory-to-implement and a minimal number of additional > options. > > /console > /file > /remote > > These are all mandatory-to-implement.. > IMO only /file should be mandatory-to-implement. But not all systems have a local file system to write logs to. If there must be one mandatory-to-implement, shouldn't it be 'remote'? > [clyde2] I will remove the buffer and session actions in the next > draft and will make the remaining three features. Good! /martin _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
