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

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Fri, 09 March 2018 01:27 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05549128954; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 17:27:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.89
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.89 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MSbYN07T2NbI; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 17:27:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05F41126BF6; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 17:27:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Svantevit.local (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w291R70k001081 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 8 Mar 2018 19:27:08 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be Svantevit.local
To: "Clyde Wildes (cwildes)" <cwildes@cisco.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: "netmod-chairs@ietf.org" <netmod-chairs@ietf.org>, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, "draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model@ietf.org>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
References: <152049713585.21371.5349464317624337106.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <B6CDE5F2-9986-4D47-B2A5-5178514533B7@cisco.com>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <6300eca8-3c6a-3837-c22a-3d67785fb968@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 19:27:02 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <B6CDE5F2-9986-4D47-B2A5-5178514533B7@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/eOJiI-q4pFzYXRBFsPTIh7j5Qu0>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-23: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 01:27:10 -0000

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.

/a