Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-12
Original Message -
From: "Clyde Wildes (cwildes)"
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 5:58 PM
> Tom,
>
> Inline…
>
> On 3/16/17, 10:04 AM, "t.petch" wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Clyde Wildes (cwildes)"
> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 6:11 PM
>
> > Tom,
> >
> > The next revision of the draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model includes
a
> change to the Yang tree diagram explanation to include the text
from
> RFC6087bis.
> >
> > RFC5426 is referenced in the model where "Transmission of Syslog
> Messages over UDP” occurs:
> >
> > case udp {
> > container udp {
> >description
> > "This container describes the UDP transport
> > options.";
> >reference
> > "RFC 5426: Transmission of Syslog Messages
over
> UDP";
> >
> > This is a correct reference.
>
> Indeed but I don't think that [RFC5426] is going to work as part
of
> leaf sig-number-resends
> while
>
>leaf structured-data {
> ...
>as per RFC5424
>
> is not the usual style.
>
> [clyde] I was urged to use the descriptions directly from RFC5848 – in
this case from section 6.1.2. Configuration Parameters for Signature
Blocks (page 25)
>
> sigNumberResends = number of times a Signature Block is resent.
> (It is recommended to select a value of greater than "0" in
> particular when the UDP transport [RFC5426] is used.)
Clyde
The semantics are fine but it is the [ syntax ] I think incorrect.
> [clyde] Please suggest a new name for the selector that you think
should be changed. I could not find a reference to this in my notes.
>
> On another tack, I thought that you agreed to change one of the
> identifiers in
>
> grouping selector {
>description
>
>container selector {
I made a note of a comment by AC (but which?) that selector selector
was confusing, which I agreed to, and I thought you agreed too, but I
discarded that thread and cannot now find it (it could be several
versions ago).
Anyhow, I find it confusing and would suggest 'filter' (which RFC5424
uses) not 'selector' . Since the container appears in the diagram, I
would be inclined to use 'filter' there but it is removing the apparent
ambiguity e.g. of a usage such as
uses selector {
refine " selector" {
that concerns me more.
Tom Petch
> Thanks,
>
> Clyde
>
>
> Tom Petch
>
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Clyde
> >
> > On 3/1/17, 4:20 AM, "netmod on behalf of t.petch"
> wrote:
> >
> > The explanation of the YANG tree diagram is not that in
RFC6087; I
> think
> > that it should be (or else explain why not)
> >
> > I am confused by the variation in the references to RFC in
the
> modules.
> >
> > I see
> > RFC 5424
> > [RFC5426]
> > RFC5424
> >
> > I think the first correct
> >
> > Tom Petch
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Alexander Clemm"
> > To: "Kent Watsen" ;
> >
> > Cc:
> > Sent: Friday, February 24, 2017 12:25 AM
> > Subject: Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for
> draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-11
> >
> > ___
> > netmod mailing list
> > netmod@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-12
Tom,
Inline…
On 3/16/17, 10:04 AM, "t.petch" wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Clyde Wildes (cwildes)"
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 6:11 PM
> Tom,
>
> The next revision of the draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model includes a
change to the Yang tree diagram explanation to include the text from
RFC6087bis.
>
> RFC5426 is referenced in the model where "Transmission of Syslog
Messages over UDP” occurs:
>
> case udp {
> container udp {
>description
> "This container describes the UDP transport
> options.";
>reference
> "RFC 5426: Transmission of Syslog Messages over
UDP";
>
> This is a correct reference.
Indeed but I don't think that [RFC5426] is going to work as part of
leaf sig-number-resends
while
leaf structured-data {
...
as per RFC5424
is not the usual style.
[clyde] I was urged to use the descriptions directly from RFC5848 – in this
case from section 6.1.2. Configuration Parameters for Signature Blocks (page 25)
sigNumberResends = number of times a Signature Block is resent.
(It is recommended to select a value of greater than "0" in
particular when the UDP transport [RFC5426] is used.)
[clyde] Please suggest a new name for the selector that you think should be
changed. I could not find a reference to this in my notes.
On another tack, I thought that you agreed to change one of the
identifiers in
grouping selector {
description
container selector {
Thanks,
Clyde
Tom Petch
> Thanks,
>
> Clyde
>
> On 3/1/17, 4:20 AM, "netmod on behalf of t.petch"
wrote:
>
> The explanation of the YANG tree diagram is not that in RFC6087; I
think
> that it should be (or else explain why not)
>
> I am confused by the variation in the references to RFC in the
modules.
>
> I see
> RFC 5424
> [RFC5426]
> RFC5424
>
> I think the first correct
>
> Tom Petch
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Alexander Clemm"
> To: "Kent Watsen" ;
>
> Cc:
> Sent: Friday, February 24, 2017 12:25 AM
> Subject: Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for
draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-11
>
> ___
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>
>
>
___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-12
- Original Message -
From: "Clyde Wildes (cwildes)"
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 6:11 PM
> Tom,
>
> The next revision of the draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model includes a
change to the Yang tree diagram explanation to include the text from
RFC6087bis.
>
> RFC5426 is referenced in the model where "Transmission of Syslog
Messages over UDP” occurs:
>
> case udp {
> container udp {
>description
> "This container describes the UDP transport
> options.";
>reference
> "RFC 5426: Transmission of Syslog Messages over
UDP";
>
> This is a correct reference.
Indeed but I don't think that [RFC5426] is going to work as part of
leaf sig-number-resends
while
leaf structured-data {
...
as per RFC5424
is not the usual style.
On another tack, I thought that you agreed to change one of the
identifiers in
grouping selector {
description
container selector {
Tom Petch
> Thanks,
>
> Clyde
>
> On 3/1/17, 4:20 AM, "netmod on behalf of t.petch"
wrote:
>
> The explanation of the YANG tree diagram is not that in RFC6087; I
think
> that it should be (or else explain why not)
>
> I am confused by the variation in the references to RFC in the
modules.
>
> I see
> RFC 5424
> [RFC5426]
> RFC5424
>
> I think the first correct
>
> Tom Petch
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Alexander Clemm"
> To: "Kent Watsen" ;
>
> Cc:
> Sent: Friday, February 24, 2017 12:25 AM
> Subject: Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for
draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-11
>
> ___
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>
>
>
___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-12
Tom,
The next revision of the draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model includes a change to
the Yang tree diagram explanation to include the text from RFC6087bis.
RFC5426 is referenced in the model where "Transmission of Syslog Messages over
UDP” occurs:
case udp {
container udp {
description
"This container describes the UDP transport
options.";
reference
"RFC 5426: Transmission of Syslog Messages over UDP";
This is a correct reference.
Thanks,
Clyde
On 3/1/17, 4:20 AM, "netmod on behalf of t.petch" wrote:
The explanation of the YANG tree diagram is not that in RFC6087; I think
that it should be (or else explain why not)
I am confused by the variation in the references to RFC in the modules.
I see
RFC 5424
[RFC5426]
RFC5424
I think the first correct
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: "Alexander Clemm"
To: "Kent Watsen" ;
Cc:
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2017 12:25 AM
Subject: Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-11
___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
[netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-12
The explanation of the YANG tree diagram is not that in RFC6087; I think that it should be (or else explain why not) I am confused by the variation in the references to RFC in the modules. I see RFC 5424 [RFC5426] RFC5424 I think the first correct Tom Petch - Original Message - From: "Alexander Clemm" To: "Kent Watsen" ; Cc: Sent: Friday, February 24, 2017 12:25 AM Subject: Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-11 ___ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
