entity `Re: [Syslog] Mib-13

["tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com>]

I am with David on this one.  Since RFC3164, -protocol, -sign, -tls etc all
manage without reference to 'entity', then I think there needs to be good
justification for introducing a new technical term eg it should label a
distinctly different concept and that  I do not see.

Tom Petch


----- Original Message -----
From: "Glenn M. Keeni" <glenn@cysols.com>
To: <syslog@ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 2:53 AM
Subject: Re: [Syslog] Mib-13


> Hi,
>    Thanks for the comments. A revised I-D mib-14.txt has been
> posted to the drafts archives. The response to the comments
> are given in line below.
>
>    Cheers
>
>    Glenn
>
> David Harrington wrote:
> >
> > [speaking as a contributor]
> >
> > Glenn, thanks for the new revision.
> > A few comments.
> >
> 1-1.
>   >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.
>   >
> I disagree. We have been through device, demon and applications. It
> does appear that "entity" is the most appropriate reference. Let me
> hear more from the WG on this.
>
> 1-2.
>   >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.
>   >
>   I am not sure that this is the right design. It certainly does not
>   look elegant to me.
>   Done.
>
> 2.
>   >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.
>   >
>   See 1.
>
<snip>