Re: entity `Re: [Syslog] Mib-13

["Glenn M. Keeni" <glenn@cysols.com>]

Tom,
  I do not understand what you mean by a technical term. Perhaps
entity is as technical as "it". It is convenient and appropriate
since we do not know or do not want to predict whether a syslog
message will be generated by a "application", "device", "organism",
"machine" or whatever.

  Glenn

tom.petch wrote:
> I am with David on this one.  Since RFC3164, -protocol, -sign, -tls etc all
> manage without reference to 'a technical term. 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>
> 



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