[netmod] Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-32: (with COMMENT)

["Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[e-mail]>]

Mahesh and Joe,

Thanks for your prompt replies.

Understood for NETMOD vs. OPSAWG (both charters allow it anyway, a strange overlap though).

Agreed on all the proposed changes, they make the text better.

Now, about the tree representation, I wonder how it could be improved by clearly delineating the grouping and imported branches...  Was there any project in NETMOD about this ?

Regards

-éric

From: Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]>
Date: Wednesday, 4 September 2024 at 19:41
To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]>
Cc: The IESG <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, NETMOD WG Chairs <[e-mail]>, NETMOD Working Group <[e-mail]>, Lou Berger <[e-mail]>, Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-32: (with COMMENT)
[Speaking as an author]

Hi Eric,


On Sep 4, 2024, at 2:32 AM, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-32: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the work done in this document, I have nevertheless some
non-blocking comments (see below) and I am also curious why this document was
done in NETMOD rather than OPSAWG (as it seems that many YANG models are
authored in OPSAWG even if NETMOD charter would allow it).

The document has a long history, starting back in 2014. The reason (partly) for keeping it in NETMOD at the time when the work started was because most of the YANG experts were active in NETMOD more than OPSAWG. If we were to look at it today, you are probably right, the document would have more likely been done in OPSAWG.



# Meta data

Should Mahesh's new affiliation be specified ?

The bulk of the work was done when I was affiliated with Kloud, which BTW is still active, and therefore decided to keep the affiliation.



# Abstract and title

It is unclear that the YANG model is only for the collector part of syslog.

That is correct. Would it help if the word collector was used? Something like

OLD:
It is intended this model be used by vendors who implement syslog in their systems.

NEW:
It is intended this model be used by vendors who implement syslog collector in their systems.



# Section 1

What is the `target system` ? At first reading, it seems to be the collector
system, if so, should the I-D be consistent in vocabulary ?

Ok. How about this?

OLD:
This module can be used to configure the syslog application conceptual layers as implemented on the target system.

NEW:
This module can be used to configure the syslog application conceptual layers as implemented on the syslog collector.



# Section 5.1

While I am not a YANG expert, isn't it weird to replicate the facility-filter
under console, remote, and file ? Or is it just a caveat of the tree diagram
when it expands the facility-filter grouping several times ?

Yes, what you are seeing is an expansion of the grouping called ‘selector’ used each time for facility of console, remote and file.



Would it be possible to import TLS and authentication from other YANG models ?

It does indeed import groupings from ietf-tls-client module defined in draft-ietf-netconf-tls-client-server module, and is the reason why it has taken this draft all this time to come forth for publication.

Thanks.






Mahesh Jethanandani
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>