Madison, Approved from me!
Thanks, Clyde > On Mar 19, 2025, at 8:56 AM, Madison Church <mchu...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > wrote: > > 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
