On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 05:43:33PM -0500, David Harrington wrote: > [as co-chair] > This discussion started between Chris and I concerning the remaining > charter item of submitting the Syslog Device MIB. > > The existing MIB has been rather controversial, and has knobs for > configuring syslog using the MIB, when osme implementers say they have > no demand for a MIB for syslog, and there has been lots of discussion > in the IETF that SNMP is often not the preferred way to do > configuration. So we started discussing whether to approach > manageability differently. And we are looking for WG input.
The charter says: - A document will be produced to describe the MIB for syslog entities. This text (whether on purpose or by accident) does not define what function the MIB should support nor did I find the work configuration in the charter text. Most people seem to agree that producing a read-only monitoring MIB is (a) much easier to do than a writable MIB, (b) much easier to reach consensus on, and (c) much easier to implement, I would take a rather pragmatic approach: Take the device MIB and trim it down to the bare essential counters needed to monitor the activity of syslog entities (or whatever the right term is). This will make the MIB small and increase the chances that it actually gets implemented. At the same time, the WG has accomplished its charter. I somehow feel that addressing syslog configuration within this WG at this point in time may not be the right thing to do. But I am happy to be proven wrong by lots of reply emails where people commit serious resources to take on this task and commit themself to implement the result... /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
