Re: [netmod] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-23: (with COMMENT)

["Clyde Wildes (cwildes)" <[e-mail]>]

Adam,

A new draft will be published soon that addresses your concern and I have used your wording.

Thanks,

Clyde



On 3/9/18, 6:09 AM, "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" <[e-mail]> wrote:

    On 3/9/2018 2:27 AM, Adam Roach wrote:
    > On 3/8/18 12:18 PM, Clyde Wildes (cwildes) wrote:
    >> Adam,
    >>
    >> An earlier version of the model (draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-08 
    >> and prior) included “terminal” as a syslog destination which 
    >> addresses your requirement below:
    >>
    >>              +--rw terminal {terminal-action}?
    >>              |  +--rw all-terminals!
    >>              |  |  +--rw log-selector
    >>              |  |     +--rw (selector-facility)
    >>              |  |     |  +--:(no-log-facility)
    >>              |  |     |  |  +--rw no-facilities?   empty
    >>              |  |     |  +--:(log-facility)
    >>              |  |     |     +--rw log-facility* [facility]
    >>              |  |     |        +--rw facility             union
    >>              |  |     |        +--rw severity             union
    >>              |  |     |        +--rw severity-operator? enumeration 
    >> {selector-sevop-config}?
    >>              |  |     +--rw pattern-match?   string 
    >> {selector-match-config}?
    >>              |  +--rw terminal* [name] 
    >> {terminal-facility-user-logging-config}?
    >>              |     +--rw name            string
    >>              |     +--rw log-selector
    >>              |        +--rw (selector-facility)
    >>              |        |  +--:(no-log-facility)
    >>              |        |  |  +--rw no-facilities?   empty
    >>              |        |  +--:(log-facility)
    >>              |        |     +--rw log-facility* [facility]
    >>              |        |        +--rw facility             union
    >>              |        |        +--rw severity             union
    >>              |        |        +--rw severity-operator? enumeration 
    >> {selector-sevop-config}?
    >>              |        +--rw pattern-match?   string 
    >> {selector-match-config}?
    >>
    >> A consensus of the group was that it was best to remove this 
    >> destination in the model as a simplification, and that vendors that 
    >> supported same could add it back through an augmentation.
    >
    > Thanks for the history -- that's useful to know. I don't have any 
    > desire to re-open a settled issue, so please don't read my response as 
    > a request to go back to the older, more complex model.
    >
    > My concern now is that the unstated assumption above isn't indicated 
    > in the document; and absent such a treatment, I fear that some vendors 
    > may do what you expect (extend the model), while some may do what I 
    > mentioned (expect terminal syslog output to be provisioned via a 
    > special filesystem node using the "file" subtree). This ambiguity 
    > doesn't seem ideal.
    >
    > I would suggest that the document have text specifically indicating 
    > that terminal output with requirements more complex than the console 
    > subtree currently provides are expected to be supported via vendor 
    > extensions rather than handled via the file subtree.
    That makes sense.
    
    Regards, B.
    >
    > /a
    >
    > .
    >