Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-15
"Clyde Wildes (cwildes)" <cwildes@cisco.com> Wed, 09 August 2017 16:53 UTC
Return-Path: <cwildes@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 0EEB213242B for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 09:53:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.521
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.521 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 J5uoUFRfC2zV for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 09:53:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FFCE1321B6 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 09:53:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5970; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1502297630; x=1503507230; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=SjmPomQ8Jt1vufOKGADaSoCuDBe2i01JSCOVKHlyIC8=; b=klIk81LH34nGV/UVG1ScUP8ogxS7/mIgFmyoAV0smCXX+mvMK5YpIJ+r r4qMYSEByfXLx8jjAxVu0CrjaVxUBtOkYyyDXwMNkplskr4stgpJ85Vj4 nG3J3xRddRIfyzKxyNcHeJwNBmFHu5jVYqwP7PmBuUbXSk9cFZJvQ3Zz3 M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0D5AAAVPYtZ/4MNJK1cGgEBAQECAQEBAQgBAQEBg1qBeAeOCJAFgW6WFYIShUcCGoRkPxgBAgEBAQEBAQFrKIUYAQEBAQIBHQYRPhMEAgEIFQECAgImAgICMBUQAgQBEoonCK4MgiaLSQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAR2BC4IdggKBTIIOgnyIBjCCMQWgFwKLI4kRklGWCgEfOIEKdxVJEgGHB3aHUAaBLAGBDgEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.41,348,1498521600"; d="scan'208";a="278770943"
Received: from alln-core-1.cisco.com ([173.36.13.131]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 09 Aug 2017 16:53:49 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com (xch-aln-014.cisco.com [173.36.7.24]) by alln-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v79Gronx029355 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 9 Aug 2017 16:53:50 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-015.cisco.com (173.36.7.25) by XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com (173.36.7.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 11:53:49 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-015.cisco.com ([173.36.7.25]) by XCH-ALN-015.cisco.com ([173.36.7.25]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 11:53:49 -0500
From: "Clyde Wildes (cwildes)" <cwildes@cisco.com>
To: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>, Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-15
Thread-Index: AQHTALcsnxmaKupZ/kyeF+fon7bzlqJ8BjHYgAA2+gA=
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2017 16:53:49 +0000
Message-ID: <55F0DA02-0E29-46B6-9F4A-B2525EE3F003@cisco.com>
References: <91FA5813-8D96-414F-BAC6-BA6C65C5149C@cisco.com> <055c01d31103$28f51200$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
In-Reply-To: <055c01d31103$28f51200$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [128.107.151.9]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <7B1A12BB3EF8C245B5209CE669E63D75@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/k_Djsh2rLxJSWvJhfkvnfGmfVSg>
Subject: Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-15
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: Wed, 09 Aug 2017 16:53:53 -0000
Tom, The agreement was that I should use “xxxx” until the two unapproved RFCs that the model depends on are assigned numbers. RFC xxxx: Keystore Management RFC xxxx: Transport Layer Security (TLS) Client"; Imported are: import ietf-tls-client { prefix tlsc; } import ietf-keystore { prefix ks; } Have numbers been assigned? Thanks, Clyde On 8/9/17, 4:32 AM, "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com> wrote: Clyde You use xxxx as a placeholder for three different RFC and two of these do not appear AFAICT in the list of References. This might be a challenge for the RFC Editor. Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Clyde Wildes (cwildes)" <cwildes@cisco.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 6:48 PM > Hi Alex, > > Answers inline as [clyde]… > > On 7/17/17, 4:20 PM, "netmod on behalf of Alex Campbell" <netmod-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of Alex.Campbell@Aviatnet.com> wrote: > > I am considering to implement the data model in this draft. (dependent on business priorities of course) > I have reviewed this draft and found the following issues. > > * I see pattern-match is specified to use POSIX 1003.2 regular expressions. This is presumably for compatibility with existing implementations; however it is inconsistent with most of YANG (which is specified to use XPath regular expressions) - unless these are the same. > > [clyde] I believe that my answer in the other thread explains why we used Posix 1003.2 – it is commonly used. > > * pattern-match is inside the facility-filter container; common sense says this is wrong as pattern-match has nothing to do with facilities. > > [clyde] I will move pattern-match up one level in the next version of the draft. Thanks for catching this! > > * The advanced-compare container groups together two nodes that share a common "when" and "if-feature" statement, but don't seem to have any semantic relation to each other. Are there general guidelines on when to use a container? > > [clyde] The confusion may come as a result of the when clause appearing before the if-feature clause which is set by the IETF statement order recommendation. > > The when construct was suggested by Martin Björklund as a way of solving the case that advanced-compare does not apply for the ‘all’ and ‘none’ case. > > The if-feature applies to the entire container – it is either supported or not. > > * The advanced-compare container has a description starting with "This leaf ..." even though it is not a leaf. > > [clyde] This will be fixed in the next draft. > > * The examples are missing <facility-filter> nodes. > > [clyde] This will be fixed in the next draft. > > * Perhaps there should be more consistent terminology for receivers of syslog messages; both "collectors" and "actions" are used in the draft. RFC 5424 uses "collector" for the ultimate recipient of a log message - which might not be applicable, because the sending system has no idea whether the receiving system is a collector or a relay. > > [clyde] The definition of “collector” in RFC 5424 is: A "collector" gathers syslog content for further analysis. > > actions relate to the “further analysis” taken by the “collector”. > > “Collectors” appears in the model under the remote action and I believe the usage is correct: > container remote { > if-feature remote-action; > description > "This container describes the configuration parameters for > forwarding syslog messages to remote relays or collectors."; > > I will revise the description of these terms in the next draft. > > Thanks, > > Clyde > > ________________________________________ > From: netmod <netmod-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net> > Sent: Saturday, 8 July 2017 6:34 a.m.
- [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-syslo… Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-s… Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-s… Alex Campbell
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-s… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-s… Clyde Wildes (cwildes)
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-s… Clyde Wildes (cwildes)
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-s… t.petch
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-s… Clyde Wildes (cwildes)
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-s… Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-s… Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-s… t.petch
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-s… Clyde Wildes (cwildes)
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-s… Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-s… Clyde Wildes (cwildes)
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-s… t.petch
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-s… Kent Watsen