Hi Authors,
This is a friendly reminder that we await answers to the followup questions
below and your review of the document before continuing with the publication
process.
Thank you,
RFC Editor/mc
> On Mar 25, 2025, at 11:36 AM, Madison Church <mchu...@staff.rfc-editor.org>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Mahesh,
>
> Thank you for your reply! We have updated the document accordingly and have
> two followup items.
>
>> On Mar 21, 2025, at 6:04 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanand...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Madison,
>>
>> Sorry for getting to this review a little late. I have some minor editorial
>> comments and are based on the side-by-side diffs that I am looking at.
>>
>> The first comment has to do with the tree diagram. I was trying to
>> understand why one line has wrapped around, when the previous version of the
>> tree diagram did not. Can that be fixed?
>
> 1) Thank you for pointing this out. With the initial AUTH48 email, we sent
> out the following query:
>
> 6) <!-- [rfced] FYI, in the YANG tree, this line was followed by a
> floating question mark, which we moved up to the preceding line.
> This line exceeds the character limit (69 chars for <sourcecode>)
> by 3 characters. For updating it, which option do you prefer?
>
> Original:
> | | | {certificate-expiration-notification}
> ?
>
> Current:
> | | | {certificate-expiration-notification}?
>
>
> Option A (using the "\" line wrapping notation as used in Appendix A.1
> and adding the note about line wrapping for formatting only):
>
> | | | {certificate-expiration-notificati\
> on}?
>
>
> Option B (moving it 3 spaces to the left):
> | | | {certificate-expiration-notification}?
> -->
>
> This was due to the "{certificate-expiration-notification}?" line exceeding
> the character limit. With this in mind, should this change remain as is?
>
>> The third comment has to do with the description of the example in Section
>> 6.1. It currently reads as:
>>
>> This example shows enabling console logging of syslogs of severity critical.
>>
>> The statement structure seems awkward. How about “This example shows how the
>> console logging of syslog of severity critical can be enabled.”?
>>
>> Finally, a similar sentence restructuring for the description in Section 6.2
>> also.
>
> 2) We have updated the sentence in Section 6.2 as follows. Please let us know
> if any updates are needed. Additionally, should "severity error" be plural in
> this sentence?
>
> Current:
> This example shows how the remote logging of syslogs to UDP destination
>
> foo.example.com for facility auth and severity error can be enabled.
>
> Perhaps:
> This example shows how the remote logging of syslogs to UDP destination
>
> foo.example.com for facility auth and severity errors can be enabled.
>
> The 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
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742-auth48diff.html
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>
> For the AUTH48 status page, please see:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9742
>
> Thank you!
> RFC Editor/mc
>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Mahesh Jethanandani
>> mjethanand...@gmail.com
>>
>>> On Mar 21, 2025, at 9:49 PM, Madison Church <mchu...@staff.rfc-editor.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Joe,
>>>
>>> Thank you for your reply! We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status
>>> page (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9742). Once we receive
>>> approvals from all authors listed on the AUTH48 status page, we will move
>>> this document forward in the publication process.
>>>
>>> Thank you!
>>> RFC Editor/mc
>>>
>>>> On Mar 19, 2025, at 9:39 PM, Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jcla...@cisco.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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
