[netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-16.txt
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Network Modeling WG of the IETF. Title : A YANG Data Model for Syslog Configuration Authors : Clyde Wildes Kiran Koushik Filename: draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-16.txt Pages : 30 Date: 2017-08-11 Abstract: This document defines a YANG data model for the configuration of a syslog process. It is intended this model be used by vendors who implement syslog in their systems. Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor) This draft contains many placeholder values that need to be replaced with finalized values at the time of publication. This note summarizes all of the substitutions that are needed. No other RFC Editor instructions are specified elsewhere in this document. Artwork in this document contains shorthand references to drafts in progress. Please apply the following replacements: o "" --> the assigned RFC value for draft-ietf-netconf-keystore o "" --> the assigned RFC value for draft-ietf-netconf-tls- client-server o "" --> the assigned RFC value for this draft The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-16 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-16 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-16 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ ___ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-15
Kent,
Thanks for your exhaustive review. I will be publishing the revised model
momentarily.
Comments inline as [clyde].
On 7/12/17, 2:55 PM, "netmod on behalf of Kent Watsen" wrote:
As shepherd, yang doctor, and individual contributor, following is
my LC/YD review.
1. Because I know this draft will not be presented in Prague, I first
checked to see if it was NMDA-compatible. The draft contains just
one module, and it only contains config true nodes (no config false
nodes). There is no companion "-state" module in the Appendix. As
far as I can tell, all this is accurate, as I don't believe this
module needs to do anything special to be NMDA compatible. Agreed?
[clyde] Agreed.
2. the abstract seems just a little bland. Is there any way to beef
it up with a sentence or two?
[clyde] Done.
3. S1, P1, last sentence. s/the messages/these messages/?
[clyde] Done.
4. S1, P3, 1st sentence: "and processes those"? - rewrite sentence?
[clyde] Done.
5. S1 as a whole. I'm a bit unclear what this section is doing. It
seems to be a general summary of Syslog (RFC5424). Do we need this here?
[clyde] Suggestions appreciated. I wanted to provide a high level overview of
the syslog process. I cleaned it up a little.
6. S1.1: you should also reference RFC8174 here.
[clyde] Done
7. S1.2: three terms come from 5424, but only one has its definition
provided. This seems inconsistent...
[clyde] Done
8. S2: s/6020/7950/
[clyde] done
9. S3, P3: this paragraph is hard to read due to the previous paragraph
talking about proprietary features. Maybe replace the beginning of the
sentence to read "Some optional features are defined in this document
to specify"?
[clyde] done
10. S3, P4: The diagram appears to show multiple originators, not
just one, so s/an originator/originators/? Also, I don't think
either of the commas are needed.
[clyde] done
11. S3, P6: This paragraph starts a new aspect of the design, right?
This is likely just a text-rendering issue, but the transition from
the diagram above (Figure 1) to this line is not visible. Can you
provide a transition sentence?
[clyde] done
12. S3, P8: I'm having trouble understanding the pseudocode. What
happens if S and/or F are not present? Can S or F ever not be
present? - looking at the tree diagram, it seems like they might
always be set to something in the model.
[clyde] S or F might not be present.
The operative sentence in the pseudocode is:
There is an element of facility-list (F, S)…
or the message text matches the regex pattern (if it is present)
13. S3.1, P1: RFC 6087 did not define tree diagram notation, and
rfc6087bis references the tree-diagram draft. I don't think that
it is safe for this draft to reference the tree-diagram draft, as
that draft is unstable (the notation may change). You should
probably copy/paste the Tree Diagram Notation section found in
other drafts today (especially mine).
[clyde] I used to the Tree Diagram Notation embedded in the document and was
asked by another reviewer to use what is there now. I will change to your
document’s
notation.
14. S3.1: is /syslog/actions/remote/destination/tls/ missing an
'address' leaf?
[clyde] not as far as I know
15. S4.1, P1: Doesn't the module import *groupings* from ietf-keystore
and ietf-tls-client?
[clyde] done
16. S4.1, though it's not in 6087bis, I think that it is best
practice for 'import' statements to include a 'reference'
substatement:
import ietf-keystore {
prefix ks;
reference
"RFC : Keystore Model";
}
17. S4.1, imports that are used for groupings only should use a
revision statement:
import ietf-tls-client {
prefix tlsc;
revision-date -MM-DD; // stable grouping definitions
reference
"RFC : TLS Client and Server Models";
}
[clyde] done
18. S4.1, can you put the beginning of the 'organization' (i.e. "IETF")
on the next line, s/NETCONF Data Modeling Language/Network Modeling/,
and put a blank line in after the 'organization' line?
[clyde] done
19. S4.1, in the 'severity-filter' grouping, why does leaf 'severity'
have values set for enums 'none' and 'all'? When would these values
be used, as opposed to the enum's name string? If you do need values,
then shouldn't 'none' be 2147483647 (so nothing can be greater than it)
and 'all' be -2147483648 (so everything is greater than it)?
[clyde] ‘none’ and ‘all’ are set to values that are not defined in RFC 5424.
These values
were previously suggested by Martin Björklund
20. S7: can you indent the two blocks of details so the whole thing
reads better?
[clyde]
Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-15
Clyde
As Kent says, I would prefer to see only one with others being
or some such.
Further, I think that this RFC to be should be in the list of
References.
Adding it there would then solve my additional problem of which I-D you
have in mind. There are two relating to key management and neither are
titled Keystore Management:-( I can guess which you mean but I do not
think that I should be guessing!
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: "Clyde Wildes (cwildes)"
To: "t.petch" ; "Kent Watsen"
;
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 5:53 PM
Subject: Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-15
> Tom,
>
> The agreement was that I should use “” until the two unapproved
RFCs that the model depends on are assigned numbers.
>
> RFC : Keystore Management
> RFC : Transport Layer Security (TLS) Client";
>
> Imported are:
>
> import ietf-tls-client {
> prefix tlsc;
> }
>
> import ietf-keystore {
> prefix ks;
> }
>
>
> Have numbers been assigned?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Clyde
>
> On 8/9/17, 4:32 AM, "t.petch" wrote:
>
> Clyde
>
> You use as a placeholder for three different RFC and two of
these
> do not appear AFAICT in the list of References.
>
> This might be a challenge for the RFC Editor.
>
> Tom Petch
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Clyde Wildes (cwildes)"
> Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 6:48 PM
>
>
> > Hi Alex,
> >
> > Answers inline as [clyde]…
> >
> > On 7/17/17, 4:20 PM, "netmod on behalf of Alex Campbell"
>
wrote:
> >
> > I am considering to implement the data model in this draft.
> (dependent on business priorities of course)
> > I have reviewed this draft and found the following issues.
> >
> > * I see pattern-match is specified to use POSIX 1003.2
regular
> expressions. This is presumably for compatibility with existing
> implementations; however it is inconsistent with most of YANG
(which is
> specified to use XPath regular expressions) - unless these are the
same.
> >
> > [clyde] I believe that my answer in the other thread explains
why we
> used Posix 1003.2 – it is commonly used.
> >
> > * pattern-match is inside the facility-filter container;
common
> sense says this is wrong as pattern-match has nothing to do with
> facilities.
> >
> > [clyde] I will move pattern-match up one level in the next
version of
> the draft. Thanks for catching this!
> >
> > * The advanced-compare container groups together two nodes
that
> share a common "when" and "if-feature" statement, but don't seem
to have
> any semantic relation to each other. Are there general guidelines
on
> when to use a container?
> >
> > [clyde] The confusion may come as a result of the when clause
> appearing before the if-feature clause which is set by the IETF
> statement order recommendation.
> >
> > The when construct was suggested by Martin Björklund as a way of
> solving the case that advanced-compare does not apply for the ‘all
’ and
> ‘none’ case.
> >
> > The if-feature applies to the entire container – it is either
> supported or not.
> >
> > * The advanced-compare container has a description starting
with
> "This leaf ..." even though it is not a leaf.
> >
> > [clyde] This will be fixed in the next draft.
> >
> > * The examples are missing nodes.
> >
> > [clyde] This will be fixed in the next draft.
> >
> > * Perhaps there should be more consistent terminology for
> receivers of syslog messages; both "collectors" and "actions" are
used
> in the draft. RFC 5424 uses "collector" for the ultimate recipient
of a
> log message - which might not be applicable, because the sending
system
> has no idea whether the receiving system is a collector or a
relay.
> >
> > [clyde] The definition of “collector” in RFC 5424 is: A
"collector"
> gathers syslog content for further analysis.
> >
> > actions relate to the “further analysis” taken by the
“collector”.
> >
> > “Collectors” appears in the model under the remote action and I
> believe the usage is correct:
> > container remote {
> > if-feature remote-action;
> > description
> > "This container describes the configuration parameters
for
> >forwarding syslog messages to remote relays or
> collectors.";
> >
> > I will revise the description of these terms in the next draft.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Clyde
> >
> >
> > From: netmod on behalf of Kent
Watsen
>
> > Sent: Saturday, 8 July 2017 6:34 a.m.
>
>
>
>
___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo
