IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [BEHAVE] Two questions about draft-zhou-behave-syslog-nat-logging-00

"Zhouqian (Cathy)" <cathy.zhou@huawei.com> Wed, 11 July 2012 02:04 UTC

Return-Path: <cathy.zhou@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: behave@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: behave@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B36A811E80A1 for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 19:04:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GJb8SBYGuVAA for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 19:04:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dfwrgout.huawei.com (dfwrgout.huawei.com [206.16.17.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2FB811E8072 for <Behave@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 19:04:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.9.243 (EHLO dfweml201-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.9.243]) by dfwrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.2.3-GA FastPath) with ESMTP id AHX47916; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 22:04:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from DFWEML405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.102) by dfweml201-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.107) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 19:02:34 -0700
Received: from SZXEML421-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.160) by dfweml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.102) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 19:02:38 -0700
Received: from SZXEML527-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.6.143]) by szxeml421-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.160]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:02:34 +0800
From: "Zhouqian (Cathy)" <cathy.zhou@huawei.com>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, "meng.wei2@zte.com.cn" <meng.wei2@zte.com.cn>
Thread-Topic: [BEHAVE] Two questions about draft-zhou-behave-syslog-nat-logging-00
Thread-Index: AQHNXoHts/v3GzCemECgO01H89kPKJchyl8AgACPtcA=
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 02:02:33 +0000
Message-ID: <A6A061BEE5DDC94A9692D9D81AF776DF2D471209@szxeml527-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <mailman.0.1341912886.17343.behave@ietf.org> <OFB53BCC0B.8577E48C-ON48257A37.00353239-48257A37.00364998@zte.com.cn> <20120710102830.GA14694@elstar.local>
In-Reply-To: <20120710102830.GA14694@elstar.local>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.66.77.118]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: "Behave@ietf.org" <Behave@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] Two questions about draft-zhou-behave-syslog-nat-logging-00
X-BeenThere: behave@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: mailing list of BEHAVE IETF WG <behave.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave>
List-Post: <mailto:behave@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 02:04:13 -0000

Hi Juergen,


-----Original Message-----
From: behave-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:behave-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Juergen Schoenwaelder
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 6:29 PM
To: meng.wei2@zte.com.cn
Cc: Behave@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] Two questions about draft-zhou-behave-syslog-nat-logging-00

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 05:52:59PM +0800, meng.wei2@zte.com.cn wrote:
> Hi  Chen：
> 
>    I have read the draft about NAT syslog logging. Here are two questions.
> 
>    1) In section 1.1 you summarize 4 solution, I think the content of 
> draft is about the first solution, am I right?
> 
>    2) The draft wants to  present us a kind of message format or even a 
> kind of log format about NAT syslog . Is it the key of the text?
> 

As far as I can tell, the I-D redefines RFC 5424 message formats
(e.g. the TIMESTAMP in section 4.1.1.3), which is not appropriate. It
also adds new supposedly machine readable content in an ad-hoc way
(section 4.1.2) rather than defining proper structured data
elements. I suggest to remove all text discussing RFC 5424 elements
that do not (and must not) change and instead to focus on properly
defining the new structured data elements considered useful for NATs.
Cathy: Thanks for your comments, and you are right. We will update it.

I can't comment on the RADIUS specific text but it might be useful to
factor RADIUS specific things out into a separate document.
Cathy: We can keep this section and get specific extensions out of the document.

The discussion of performance and reliability requirements likely does
not belong into this document if it aims are being a technical
protocol specification. Some of these requirements depend on
deployment requirements or even legal frameworks.
Cathy: I am also not sure if it is appropriate to put the performance requirements here. 
My intention is to provide some guides for deployment.

Cathy 
 
/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/>
_______________________________________________
Behave mailing list
Behave@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email