On 3/8/18 12:18 PM, Clyde Wildes (cwildes) wrote:
Adam,

An earlier version of the model (draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-08 and prior) 
included “terminal” as a syslog destination which addresses your requirement 
below:

             +--rw terminal {terminal-action}?
             |  +--rw all-terminals!
             |  |  +--rw log-selector
             |  |     +--rw (selector-facility)
             |  |     |  +--:(no-log-facility)
             |  |     |  |  +--rw no-facilities?   empty
             |  |     |  +--:(log-facility)
             |  |     |     +--rw log-facility* [facility]
             |  |     |        +--rw facility             union
             |  |     |        +--rw severity             union
             |  |     |        +--rw severity-operator?   enumeration 
{selector-sevop-config}?
             |  |     +--rw pattern-match?   string {selector-match-config}?
             |  +--rw terminal* [name] {terminal-facility-user-logging-config}?
             |     +--rw name            string
             |     +--rw log-selector
             |        +--rw (selector-facility)
             |        |  +--:(no-log-facility)
             |        |  |  +--rw no-facilities?   empty
             |        |  +--:(log-facility)
             |        |     +--rw log-facility* [facility]
             |        |        +--rw facility             union
             |        |        +--rw severity             union
             |        |        +--rw severity-operator?   enumeration 
{selector-sevop-config}?
             |        +--rw pattern-match?   string {selector-match-config}?

A consensus of the group was that it was best to remove this destination in the 
model as a simplification, and that vendors that supported same could add it 
back through an augmentation.

Thanks for the history -- that's useful to know. I don't have any desire to re-open a settled issue, so please don't read my response as a request to go back to the older, more complex model.

My concern now is that the unstated assumption above isn't indicated in the document; and absent such a treatment, I fear that some vendors may do what you expect (extend the model), while some may do what I mentioned (expect terminal syslog output to be provisioned via a special filesystem node using the "file" subtree). This ambiguity doesn't seem ideal.

I would suggest that the document have text specifically indicating that terminal output with requirements more complex than the console subtree currently provides are expected to be supported via vendor extensions rather than handled via the file subtree.

/a

_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Reply via email to