Technical Summary
This document defines a YANG data model for the configuration of a
syslog process. It is intended this model be used by vendors who
implement syslog in their systems.
Working Group Summary
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
example, was there controversy about particular points or
were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
rough?
Yes, the model initially had defined support for configuring
Syslog over TPC (RFC 6587). However, after reviewing the
reasoning for why RFC 6587 was made HISTORIC, as decided to
remove the support. Some stated that their companies support
Syslog over TCP and now they would have to augment this model
with a vendor-specific extension. There may be a subtle
distinction between IETF defining an insecure protocol versus
defining a data model to configure, amongst other things, an
insecure protocol. We believe we did the right thing, from
an IETF perspective, but please double-check this.
Document Quality
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
review, on what date was the request posted?
This draft defines a data model (not a protocol). So far,
two vendors have indicated that they're interested in
implementing this data model. There was a YANG Doctor
review on the -17 that was successful:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-17-yangdoctors-lc-watsen-2017-09-12/
Personnel
The Shepherd is Kent Watsen. The AD is Benoit Claise.