> -----Original Message----- > From: David Harrington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 4:24 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Syslog] severity > > Hi, > > I don't think -protocol- spelled out the restriction clearly that > severity could only be 0-7. The document states that the 0-7 > severities listed were not normative. > > Now that Rainer pointed this out, I do realize that an implementer of > the PRI calculation code might recognize that the PRI calculation > implies such a restriction. But syslog is often implemented as a > system of independently-implemented pieces (daemon vs application, for > example), and not all of them will need to implement the PRI > calculation code, so it may not be obvious (just as it was not obvious > to Gleen who has been working with this WG for a long time). > > Before we publish the spec as an RFC, is the WG satisfied with this > restriction of severity to 0-7, and is the WG satisfied that this is > clear and unambiguous in our spec? > > If the WG believes the 0-7 restriction is unacceotable, we will need > to pull the draft back from the IESG and make changes to PRI.
The last time a version was submitted (roughly a year ago), it was pulled back *because* PRI calculation was different from legacy syslog. This was the whole point in that discussion. And, yes, then there wasn't this restriction. IMHO we can not change that without going into a "deep-inconsistency-loop" of WG decisions. > > If the WG accepts the 0-7, but thinks the draft is not clear and > unambiguous, then we could provide clarifying text as part of WGLC > without pulling the draft back from the IESG. This is what I'd recommend. A simple sentence like "severities MUST be in the range of 0 to 7" should do the job. Rainer > > David Harrington > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Rainer Gerhards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 9:26 AM > > To: Glenn M. Keeni; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: [Syslog] Dbh re-Review of -mib-11, part 1 > > > > So far, just one comment... > > > > > 1.6 > > 11) in SyslogSeverity, I recommend removing the > > > second sentnece > > > > > in the > > > > > description "The syslog protocol uses the values 0 > > > (emergency) > > > > > to 7 (debug)." since this is already spelled out in > > > the SYNTAX > > > > > clause,andshows that 99 (other) is also used. Why do we > > > > > need 99? Are other > > > > > values valid? > > > Partially fixed. When is "other" used? > > > > > > Response. > > > "other" will be used to count messages that do not have > > > severity in > > > the range 0-7. The syslog protocol specs (-19.txt) does > > > not disallow > > > such messages. > > > > Actually, -syslog-protocol disallows this by the way the PRI value > is > > specified (this was different in previous versions of the I-D). In > > short: PRI MOD 8 is severity. So if a severity greater than 7 would > be > > given, it would actually modify the facility. See 6.2.1: > > > > -- > > The Priority value is calculated by first multiplying the Facility > > number by 8 and then adding the numerical value of the Severity. > > -- > > > > Rainer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Syslog mailing list > > Syslog@lists.ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Syslog mailing list > Syslog@lists.ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog > _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
