[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Syslog] Mib-13



Hi,
  I have received this mail but I am yet to go through it. I
hope to get back before the end of the week. Meanwhile let the
comments coming.

  Cheers

  Glenn

David Harrington wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> [speaking as a contributor]
> 
> Glenn, thanks for the new revision.
> A few comments.
> 
> 1) I find the use of entity an unnecessary abstraction.
> "In this document we refer to a syslog application as a syslog
> entity."
> Since -protocol- uses application, why not just use syslog application
> instead of syslog entity? That will make the terminology more
> consistent.
> 
> In the MIB itself, let's change the hierarchy to be
> 
>                             syslogObjects
>                                |
>            -----------------------------------------
>            |                   |                    |
> syslogSystem(1)      syslogControlTable(2)   syslogOperationsTable(3)
> 
> We don't need the syslogEntity node, or the syslogEntity prefix. This
> change will make it easier to read, and eliminate the extra sub-oid in
> every varbind.
> 
> 2) "The discussion in this document in general applies to a generic
> syslog entity." 
> If we get rid of all the generalities, we get "This document applies
> to syslog applications."
> Of course, once you remove the indirection, I'm not sure it is needed
> because it is obvious.
> 
> 3) the Copyright in the MODULE-IDENTITY needs to be for the IETF
> Trust, not the Internet Trust. (I'm surprised the ID editor didn't
> catch that one; they always catch incorrect copyrights on my documents
> ;-)
> 
> 4) section 2 mentions the UDP transport. It doesn't really need to. If
> you keep it there, then you should also mention TLS and BEEP
> transports in the same paragraph.
> 
> 5) I do not find Figure 1 enlightening. I suggest you have 2 (or 3)
> figures:
> - One that shows the relationship of senders and relays and receivers
> 
> (section) 2.1 Syslog Applications
> 
>       +--------+                  +----------+
>       | Sender |--syslog message->| Receiver |
>       +--------+                  +----------+
> 
>       +--------+                  +-------+
> +----------+
>       | Sender |--syslog message->| Relay |--syslog message->|
> Receiver |
>       +--------+                  +-- ----+
> +----------+
> 
> 	Fig. 1: syslog applications
> 
>    o  A syslog application that can generate a syslog message is
> called a
>       "sender".
> 
>    o  A syslog application that can receive a syslog message is called
> a
>       "receiver".
> 
>    o  A syslog application that can receive syslog messages and
> forward them
>       to another receiver is called a "relay".
> 
> 
> - One that shows the relationship of facilities to senders.
> (section) 2.2 Facilities
> 
>                           +---------+
>                           | Sender1 |----syslog message--> 
>                          /+---------+
>         Facility-1-->|  /
>                   -->| /  +---------+ /
>         Facility-N-->|+---| Sender2 |----syslog message--> 
>                   -->| \  +---------+ \
>       SyslogHost-N-->|  \
>                          \+---------+ /
>                           | Sender3 |----syslog message--> 
>                           +---------+ \
> 	Fig. 2: Facilities
> 
> Facility: an application or device that asks a syslog sender to send a
> message. Sometimes the facility and the sysog sender are built into
> the same application; sometimes they are separate applications.
> 
> Since we plan to modify the collector definition in protocol, is the
> collector always the same as the receiver, or is the collector the
> application(s) behind the syslog application (e.g. syslogd)? If they
> are separate, then we should probably show that relationship:
> 
> - One that shows the relationship of receivers and collectors
> (section) 2.3 Collectors
> 
>                            +-----------+
>       ----syslog message-->| Receiver1 |\     |--> Collector1
>                            +-----------+ \    |
>                                           \   |
>                                            +--|--> Collector2
>                                           /   |
>                            +-----------+ /    |
>       ----syslog message-->| Receiver2 |/     |--> Collector3
>                            +-----------+
> 
> Can one receiver (one port) support multiple collectors, or is this
> always a 1:1 relationship? Can a collector ask multiple receivers
> (different ports, presumably) to listen for traffic? 
> 
> 6) I am not sure we had consensus to remove all the objects you
> removed. I will check further and consult with Chris.
> 
> 7) MsgDropped counts messages that could not be queued by a relay; but
> it will be zero if this is not a sender. The WG distinguishes between
> senders and relays, so this does not make sense. If we only count
> these on a relay, then it should be zero if it is a reciever or
> sender, and non-zero only on a relay.
> OR we need to change our definition for relay to be a syslog
> application that includes both a sender and a receiver, so a relay
> also increments counters specific to a sender and those specific to a
> reciever.
> 
> 8) Malformed - The WG distinguishes between receivers and relays;
> should we have both receivers and relays count malformed headers?
> 
> 9) MsgsReceived - should we count messages recived by receivers and
> relays?
> 
> 10) MsgsReceived. This description doesn't have the note that this
> value will be zero if the entity is not a reciever.
> 
> 11) should we also have a MsgsSent?
> 
> 12) MsgsDiscarded - you changed the terminology from ignored to
> discarded. The description in MsgsRecieved needs to be changed to
> match.
> 
> 13) MsgsDiscarded - relays should also count these.
> 
> 14) LastMsgRecdTime - the locally or from a remote entity is
> confusing. Locally appears to refer to the non-syslog-message
> communication between a facility and a sender. Is that correct? If
> that is not what locally means, I don't know how to interpret this
> text. I think we need to distinguish between the on-the-wire (i.e.
> syslog messages) and the off-the-wire communications (i.e. non-syslog
> messages). 
> 
> 15) local management system - since both SNMP and syslog are local
> management systems, I think this should be the SNMP management system.
> 
> 
> 16) OperationsReference - can we change this to OperationsRunIndex? I
> think that will more meaningful.
> 
> Thanks,
> David Harrington
> dharrington@huawei.com 
> dbharrington@comcast.net
> ietfdbh@comcast.net
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Syslog mailing list
> Syslog@lists.ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog



_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
Syslog@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog