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

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Fri, 09 March 2018 14:09 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.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 72EEF12D779; Fri, 9 Mar 2018 06:09:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 TWnasQr3M0H3; Fri, 9 Mar 2018 06:09:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F3C7126D0C; Fri, 9 Mar 2018 06:09:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3464; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1520604582; x=1521814182; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=HrHGIMuN9jLByMkgZ91FMvXiXe6hDNyNgdk5SJvloWw=; b=ltmGaVCAEw6OltGzT7fvp9e2zoKXvCisukHpUid3pLP2Ihr4rJNyj7NU IAnJfxptX+65wZmCq47XY86wgw2YdBqVDy175jkjHGA68VPAS42qTinFh Gy1lGiF5Bp2HNQFpsb8mZUzKLMgPD1fN5PzS+tWZVRMMHG1diJa3BGdtP g=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.47,445,1515456000"; d="scan'208";a="2471785"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 Mar 2018 14:09:40 +0000
Received: from [10.55.221.36] (ams-bclaise-nitro3.cisco.com [10.55.221.36]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w29E9di9000331; Fri, 9 Mar 2018 14:09:40 GMT
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, "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> <6300eca8-3c6a-3837-c22a-3d67785fb968@nostrum.com>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <56b08532-c309-a783-1dbd-76b0fd86e847@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 15:09:39 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6300eca8-3c6a-3837-c22a-3d67785fb968@nostrum.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/i0GyfgNwOmfU9Ik9VZBWqJKlMqs>
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 14:09:44 -0000

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
>
> .
>