[Syslog] MIB document decision needed

"David B Harrington" <dbharrington@comcast.net> Thu, 17 August 2006 16:54 UTC

Received: from [] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GDl84-00057F-HC; Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:54:00 -0400
Received: from [] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GDl83-000578-00 for syslog@ietf.org; Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:53:59 -0400
Received: from alnrmhc11.comcast.net ([]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GDl80-00029D-P4 for syslog@ietf.org; Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:53:58 -0400
Received: from harrington73653 (c-24-61-222-235.hsd1.nh.comcast.net[]) by comcast.net (alnrmhc11) with SMTP id <20060817165356b11000sup7e>; Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:53:56 +0000
From: David B Harrington <dbharrington@comcast.net>
To: syslog@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:52:17 -0400
Message-ID: <0c3601c6c21d$7fdb5ac0$0400a8c0@china.huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
Thread-Index: Aca8ow+og+vltxWXS/6dODLfiKq6xgFd3xtA
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a
Subject: [Syslog] MIB document decision needed
X-BeenThere: syslog@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Issues in Network Event Logging <syslog.lists.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog>, <mailto:syslog-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/syslog>
List-Post: <mailto:syslog@lists.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:syslog-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog>, <mailto:syslog-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: syslog-bounces@lists.ietf.org


Tomorrow is the deadline for establishing consensus on whether
draft-ietf-syslog-device-mib represents WG consensus on what needs to
be managed in the protocol, udp, tls, and sign
documents, and if not, what needs to be changed to represent WG

Tom has pointed out that the terminology and concepts don't seem to
match what we are standardizing in the other documents.

Please look at the MIB document and answer the following questions:
	1) Is the terminology consistent with the other WG documents?
	2) are the concepts consistent with the other WG documents?
	3) does the MIB provide management for what is being defined
in the other WG documents?
	4) does the MIB not provide adequate management for what is
defined in the WG documents?

Please reply by August 18.

David Harrington
co-chair, Syslog WG 

Syslog mailing list