[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       syslog-sec
Subject:    RE: Comments on draft-syslog-mib-00
From:       "albert.mietus" <albert.mietus () pts ! nl>
Date:       2002-02-25 12:39:22
[Download RAW message or body]

Hay Bruno,

> It was written from the perspective of a non UNIX embedded platform.

> The concept of an application came about because most of the processes
> in an embedded device do not map well to the non-local
> facilities.  Like kernel(0), etc.

I question this,

I have workend several years in the embedded software development, and
almost all those systems do have something which you may call "kernel".
Sure, it ain't Uni*. But most embedded systems do have some kind of kernel
or OS insite ( to mention: RTE, OS69, pSOS, VMS, etc)

I think, syslog messages of that level may/should get facility kernel(0).
The same applies to other non-local facilities.

(However, this isn't an item to discuss in the RFC, it's up to the embedded
programmers. I just want to show, it is possible to use non-local
facilities)

> ...
> I will try to rethink the MIB from the UNIX/Windows perspectives.

Good, Let me know when you need help.

> Should this MIB try to
> cover all possible syslog device cases?

YES
Let's try to cover all possible enviroments (Unix, embedded, PC, network) in
the standard. Then it's up to the implementers to "choose" to use only those
entries that are relevant to that system.
E.g. Do define MIB entryes for syslog-sign & -reliable. Whenever a system
doesn't use those extentions, it is easy "not to use" the corresponding MIB
entries. (objects).

--ALbert
sent mail to albert@ons-huis.net, to address me personal.
sent mail to albert.mietus@pts.nl, to address me for businesses

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]