Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-23

Bob Harold <rharolde@umich.edu> Mon, 05 March 2018 19:06 UTC

Return-Path: <rharolde@umich.edu>
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 51FDE12D7F9 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 11:06:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.989
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.989 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=umich.edu
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 jStfXLEDKZah for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 11:06:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf0-x231.google.com (mail-lf0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::231]) (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 E429D12D779 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 11:05:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf0-x231.google.com with SMTP id q69so24729490lfi.10 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 05 Mar 2018 11:05:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umich.edu; s=google-2016-06-03; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Kltn8N3mko8UlaxVeAKenuAqVn1+fwhHrfg3sNhpTJ0=; b=l5EUF8MkxQVwPeW/26PD9FzoDrJvbj67qox6FJ8tu+rFsaeS+CIpJtwZUqaAanygoY +oqDDvhKkvdCYS8QTU16za0CyefzKRWyCVzTxCOLaiQ5u9qrgnEPB8IFAGZuypUa8vaB 50iyHQVxlaisydWAXEzYkrYwfRnnr0TnZYy/slK14ghMTUI656+gzZZLIkPLWECvy5V3 XHMRhODAOZDgDk0o4kS+GXdee0S0N4mT0xF0NOf8/Q25hJwpd2a/QnuCdmjJ2KZiJMXT x6sHENfF8dy5eVLbKqethuWJVxVLa7HD0gA4zMkru0xjbdpmmp6kv5mnVGFY3O0hBmAB JaHQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Kltn8N3mko8UlaxVeAKenuAqVn1+fwhHrfg3sNhpTJ0=; b=PVojwXrnkaGcW7oRVJs28vZTUDctG59LRzeONXfVRF5qsDWJBG0sd4/USNbVl8Yx6H IXYRyZZfUKFy1Kkw3urQ8PEHdjTY3twPTGLAlyDg2ZUJoklW3GSDgXEVH9lmTr1xjcP6 +eEranuYPd1n+YASHi1lU9FOaDg4lffi1RZ99xwySwCbc3wIMjRwFPgzMhKoNxB44n73 MSNBuhvttHqFTYWLbWxhz0w+kCJQSGKn7LvP88mr1YGCVYNj/Qgn5FQUY8wqasTo00s4 lcYm7XcsmqKTh3xcVy5DPmhcNLynFl/2dABnRPYiqCS59bk8Z+29BQnYkEa0MRyWLc8x twOQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7Hk7ivGFcPPvsA/aDBlzjNn/FE0Cptv4AG6eoI/2C35cN8I9xhf 9WS9Xw+pbSv9P2JJzSVn62ZXLxqtVnt+BNIa4EfgDg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELveBXgINUpmD/JrHujqur4KczADGhxZ+tBdsp+zJ0Zx2Cu+iHNXjKxeBiV6bHwMDoIZ+/hhumMq+5nujBNwrlg=
X-Received: by 10.25.16.197 with SMTP id 66mr10918072lfq.86.1520276757957; Mon, 05 Mar 2018 11:05:57 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.46.18.21 with HTTP; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 11:05:57 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <8609E4AE-F85D-47BF-873E-764489F58463@cisco.com>
References: <CA+nkc8BUwyn=9=YVJCZwJB10dH2rwmvPShdS8yShLDuu5PzwgQ@mail.gmail.com> <8609E4AE-F85D-47BF-873E-764489F58463@cisco.com>
From: Bob Harold <rharolde@umich.edu>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 14:05:57 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+nkc8Ao-OACHFL9EbNNnj-8xDKg6BjFuiOo2bmv=2xzOtA8hQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Clyde Wildes (cwildes)" <cwildes@cisco.com>
Cc: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113fc2ec1e5e340566af045f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/moppxDtp0M30r4uS7rTy4K3c9yw>
Subject: Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-23
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: Mon, 05 Mar 2018 19:06:03 -0000

On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 5:13 PM, Clyde Wildes (cwildes) <cwildes@cisco.com>
wrote:

> Bob,
>
>
>
> Syslog message severity is set in RFC 5424 Table 2. The model in
> draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-23 conforms to that specification. A lower
> number means higher severity.
>
>
>

Thanks.  Can we add "A lower number means higher severity" to make it clear?

In Section "4.1
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-23#section-4.1>.
The ietf-syslog Module"
on page 11, cna we change:

From:

     typedef syslog-severity {
       type enumeration {
         enum "emergency" {
           value 0;
           description


Change to:


     typedef syslog-severity {

       description

         "Note that a lower value is a higher severity.

          Comparisons of equal-or-higher security mean equal or lower
numeric value"
       type enumeration {
         enum "emergency" {
           value 0;
           description


-- 
Bob Harold


>
> The severity-filter specifies that “all messages of the specified severity
> and greater match” and therefore will be selected. This conforms to the way
> that many vendors that we evaluated perform syslog message severity match
> selection.
>
>
>
> Juniper Example:
>
> https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos12.3/topics
> /task/configuration/syslog-single-chassis-facility-
> severity-messages-specifying.html
>
>
>
> “Messages from the facility that are rated at that level or higher are
> logged to the destination”
>
>
>
> Linux rsyslogd Example:
>
> http://www.rsyslog.com/doc/v8-stable/configuration/filters.html#selectors
>
>
>
> “The behavior of the original BSD syslogd is that all messages of the
> specified priority and higher are logged according to the given action.
> Rsyslogd behaves the same…”
>
>
>
> Changing the table to match higher severity to higher number means that we
> would not conform the RFC 5424.
>
>
>
> Note: I do see a typo in the description for severity-filter (the word
> “use” is missing):
>
>
>
> else compare message severity with the specified severity
>
>           according to the default compare rule (all messages of the
>
>           specified severity and greater match) or if the
>
>           select-adv-compare feature is present, the advance-compare
>
>           rule.
>
>
>
> should be:
>
>
>
> else compare message severity with the specified severity
>
>           according to the default compare rule (all messages of the
>
>           specified severity and greater match) or if the
>
>           select-adv-compare feature is present, use the advance-compare
>
>           rule.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Clyde
>
>
>
> *From: *netmod <netmod-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Bob Harold <
> rharolde@umich.edu>
> *Date: *Friday, March 2, 2018 at 12:33 PM
> *To: *"netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *[netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-23
>
>
>
> Sorry for being late to the discussion - just joined this group.
>
> Can we have "higher severity" match "higher number" in the enumerated
> values, to avoid confusion?
>
> In section 4.1.  The ietf-syslog Module
> on Page 11
>
> typedef syslog-severity {
>
> -- should be in the order:
> debug=0
> emergency=7
>
> because "severity-filter" uses "equals-or-higher" which means "higher
> severity" but should also mean "higher number" to avoid confusion.
>
> --
> Bob Harold
>