>From the client side there could be value in SNMP configuration, either for configuring the appropriate syslog servers for 10's, 100's, or 1000's of Unix desktops or embedded systems, or for controlling the severity of the messages forwarded by specific applications on those devices.
In the networking equipment space being able to manage the level of messages sent by particular applications, and controlling which servers those messages are sent to could be part of a valuable tool for debugging application specific issues in certain environments. Greetings, Bruno -----Original Message----- From: Rainer Gerhards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 9:20 AM To: Glenn Mansfield Keeni; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: SyslogMIB Issue-#6 Sorry for the late follow up... I am not sure if we really desire this. As of my knowledge, most existing syslogds have far more sophisticated rules than the stock syslogd implementtions with just filtering on facility and severity. And they have, because there is a customer demand. You now can argue that by providing the generic configuration way, an administrator can at least configure all devices (in a vendor-ignorant way) to some desired common basic configuration. I just doubt that this "basic configuration" would just be too limited to be actually useful for the administrator. So I am not sure if it is really worth putting this effort in.... I have no strong opinion on this, though. But I am a bit on the "we should stick with read-only" side... Rainer > -----Original Message----- > From: Glenn Mansfield Keeni [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 10:49 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: SyslogMIB Issue-#6 > > Issue #6. Configuration Stuff - should it be there ? > > If the MIB is made read-only we cannot use it for configuration > of syslog processes. That is a disadvantage if we wanted to > configure our syslog processes in the first place. Otherwise, > the consequences are > - implementations would be simpler > - security implications are lesser > - passage through the IESG-review process may be smoother (?) > > So, do we want to be able to configure Syslog processes? Community > input is required here. > > Status: Waiting on community input
