A YANG Data Model for Syslog Configuration
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: IETF-Announce <email@example.com> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, The IESG <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, Kent Watsen <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, Lou Berger <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Protocol Action: 'A YANG Data Model for Syslog Configuration' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-26.txt) The IESG has approved the following document: - 'A YANG Data Model for Syslog Configuration' (draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-26.txt) as Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Network Modeling Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Warren Kumari and Benoit Claise. A URL of this Internet Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model/
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.