Subject: [Syslog] MIB Issue #2: document terminology.

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 12:57:56 -0500

Hi,

[speaking as co-chair]

For issue#2, you do not need to worry about the MIB module itself, so
a lack of SNMP expertise is not important to resolving this issue.

I have a copy of an unofficial -02- revision of the syslog-device-mib
that was edited by Bruno Pape, dated August 2002. The current mib
draft inherited its terminology and architecture diagrams and support
for multiple entities from the WG drafts edited by Bruno. So the
current terminology and architecture and table structure was decided
by the WG, in the adoption and subsequent development of the mib
document.

As WG editor, it is Glenn's responsibility to represent in the
document the consensus of the WG; if only one WG member argues for
substantial changes to an existing WG document, then there is no clear
WG consensus to make such changes. 

We need multiple WG members to review the current MIB document for the
chairs to determine that the terminology used in the text sections
represents what the WG wants to see, and that WG agrees the text
section adequately describes what information is needed to manage a
syslog sender, receiver, relay, and/or collector.

Again, you do not need to be SNMP-literate to do such a review; We
need a review of the surrounding text.

Please make suggestions for replacement text when you think the
current text is not appropriate.

David Harrington
[email-masked] 
[email-masked]
[email-masked]
Syslog WG co-chair

_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog

---

From: "Rainer Gerhards" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 09:11:48 +0100

David,

I will happily do that. But before I can, I need to go back to the
discussion on architecture in syslog-protocol. Is this issue solved? Do
we need a new section or are the proposed definition updates enough?

I am asking these questions because I think we need to be clear on the
terminology before we check its usage in another document.

Rainer

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Harrington [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 6:58 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Syslog] MIB Issue #2: document terminology.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> [speaking as co-chair]
>

---

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:02:24 -0500

Hi,

[speaking as a contributor]

We have already submitted the protocol document.
If everybody else is satisfied the terminology is clear in that
document, with the minor fixes you have made), then I will not oppose
it simply moving forward. 

I do want to make sure the descriptions in the mib document are
consistent with the protocol document, and clear and unambiguous for
MIB implementers, who may be different personnel than the syslog
implementers. I find the mib document to be too abstract in its
architecture and terminology, and that makes it confusing. I think the
MIB document should be written in terms of senders and receivers and
relays, and not in terms of entities.

I am not concerned about the naming in the MIB tables for Issue#2; I
will tackle that in issue#3.

I am attaching the pre-02 revision. I recommend people look at the 02
revision and compare it to a reasonably current revision (I used 08,
since that was before some of the massive restructuring of the MIB, so
it is closer to 02). 

I find the background text in rev 02 much clearer than in rev 11. 
I find "How this MIB Works" somewhat enlightening in rev 02; it talks
about sending to multiple message aggregators. While more detailed,
rev 11 does not explain the purpose of a syslogSystem group and how
this portion of the MIB works. I walk away from the current text in
How the MIB Works thinking "what did that say?"

I am not saying we should use the text from 02; it obviously does not
represent the current terminology either. But the text in 02 is
concrete enough that the reader (even I!) can grasp what is being
discussed - "All Syslog collectors for an individual entity can be
defined to use the same UDP port number, syslog facility, and maximum
severity level, or any and all of these can be defined on a per
collector basis."; rev 11 just says "The default configuration
parameters for the group of syslog entities" leaving me wondering
"syslog entities? What types of syslog entities? What sorts of default
configuration parameters? Why are default configuration parameters
needed?". 

The current text does not describe any use cases for the information
provided in the MIB module. Maybe that is what is really missing from
this text.

dbh

> From: Rainer Gerhards [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 3:12 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Syslog] MIB Issue #2: document terminology.
> 
> David,
>