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

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

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,

Clyde

On 3/8/18, 12:19 AM, "Adam Roach" <[e-mail]> wrote:

    Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
    draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-23: No Objection
    
    When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
    email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
    introductory paragraph, however.)
    
    
    Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
    for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
    
    
    The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model/
    
    
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    COMMENT:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    One quick comment on the model for the console:
    
                +--rw console! {console-action}?
                |  +--rw facility-filter
                |  |  +--rw facility-list* [facility severity]
                |  |     +--rw facility            union
                |  |     +--rw severity            union
                |  |     +--rw advanced-compare {select-adv-compare}?
                |  |        +--rw compare?   enumeration
                |  |        +--rw action?    enumeration
                |  +--rw pattern-match?     string {select-match}?
    
    Syslog can be (and frequently is) configured to log to "console" on a
    non-default tty. It's not clear from this model how this would be configured or
    indicated. Is the assumption here that all non-default-console tty logging
    would be handled by the "file" portion of the tree? If so, it would be worth
    indicating so explicitly, and noting that such an approach is limited to those
    systems that present ttys as a part of the filesystem. Alternately, it might
    make sense to add a tty field to the "console" subtree to report/configure this
    value.