Approved from me. Thanks, Madison! Joe
From: Madison Church <mchu...@staff.rfc-editor.org> Date: Wednesday, March 19, 2025 at 11:57 To: Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jcla...@cisco.com>, Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanand...@gmail.com>, cl...@clydewildes.com <cl...@clydewildes.com>, kirankoushik.agraharasreeniv...@verizonwireless.com <kirankoushik.agraharasreeniv...@verizonwireless.com> Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>, netmod-...@ietf.org <netmod-...@ietf.org>, netmod-cha...@ietf.org <netmod-cha...@ietf.org>, kwat...@juniper.net <kwat...@juniper.net>, Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net>, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9742 <draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-33> for your review Hi Authors, Joe - Thank you for your reply! We have updated the document as requested. All - Please review the updated files and let us know if you approve the document in its current form. Once we receive approvals from each person listed on the AUTH48 status page, we will move forward in the publication process. Updated files (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742.xml Diff files: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742-diff.html (comprehensive diff) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742-rfcdiff.html (side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes only) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) For the AUTH48 status page, see: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9742 Thank you! RFC Editor/mc > On Mar 18, 2025, at 3:58 AM, Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jcla...@cisco.com> wrote: > > Madison, it chatting with our AD, we would like to make a few small changes > to the text to add clarity. Essentially, this involves changing some > instance of “configuration” to “management”. > First, the title of the document becomes, “A YANG Data Model for Syslog > Management”. Then, in the abstract: > OLD: > This document defines a YANG data model for the configuration of a syslog > process. It is intended that this data model be used by vendors who implement > syslog collectors in their systems. > NEW: > This document defines a YANG data model for the management of a syslog > process. It is intended that this data model be used by vendors who implement > syslog collectors in their systems. > Then, in Section 1: > OLD: > This document defines a YANG [RFC7950] configuration data model > NEW: > This document defines a YANG [RFC7950] data model > Then, in the YANG module in Section 5.1: > OLD: > This module contains a collection of YANG definitions for syslog > configuration. > NEW: > This module contains a collection of YANG definitions for syslog management. > Joe > From: Madison Church <mchu...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > Date: Monday, March 17, 2025 at 15:24 > To: Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jcla...@cisco.com>, Mahesh Jethanandani > <mjethanand...@gmail.com>, cl...@clydewildes.com <cl...@clydewildes.com>, > kirankoushik.agraharasreeniv...@verizonwireless.com<kirankoushik.agraharasreeniv...@verizonwireless.com> > Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>, netmod-...@ietf.org > <netmod-...@ietf.org>, netmod-cha...@ietf.org <netmod-cha...@ietf.org>, > kwat...@juniper.net <kwat...@juniper.net>, Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net>, > auth48archive@rfc-editor.org <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9742 <draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-33> for > your review > Hi Authors, > > Joe - Thank you for the confirmation! > > All - Now that our questions have been addressed, please review the document > carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make changes once it has been > published as an RFC. Contact us with any further updates or with your > approval of the document in its current form. We will await approvals from > each author prior to moving forward in the publication process. > > Updated files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742.xml > > Updated diff files: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742-diff.html (comprehensive edits) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes > only) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > For the AUTH48 status page, see: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9742 > > Thank you, > RFC Editor/mc > > > On Mar 14, 2025, at 1:53 AM, Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jcla...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > > > > [rfced] Thank you for pointing this out (and apologies for missing this > > earlier). We have updated the Security Considerations section to match what > > appears in 8407bis [1]. > > > > Additionally, please note that we have removed the following text from the > > Security Considerations to match 8407bis. If this text should be re-added > > to the paragraph (or if there are any further updates needed), please let > > us know. > > [JMC] You know, I don’t think it’s needed in light of the boilerplate text > > indicating an impact to operations if these data nodes are not protected. > > I’m good with the sec considerations as they read now. > > Joe
-- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
