From: "David Harrington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 7:33 PM Subject: [Syslog] timeline > > Here are two things we need to resolve soon. > <snip> > 2) whether draft-ietf-syslog-device-mib represents WG consensus on > what needs to be managed in the protocol, udp, tls, and sign > documents, and if not, what needs to be changed to represent WG > consensus. We want to finalize this WG decision by August 18 as well.
I still have trouble with the mib document, not for any mibby reason but simply because, as I commented on the previous version, it seems to be written in a different language to the other I-D and, insofar as I understand that language, seems to be describing a different set of concepts to the other documents. As I said, this is a question of reading the introductory text, no network management skills required, to see, if like me, you think this out of line with the other I-D. TOm Petch > > David Harrington > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > co-chair, Syslog WG > _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
