Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-opsawg-syslog-snmp-03

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:27:33 -0500

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-syslog-snmp-03
Reviewer: Ben Campbell	
Review Date: 2009-07-10
IETF LC End Date: 2009-07-13
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary:

This draft is very close to ready for publication as a proposed  
standard. I have a few minor comments that may be worth considering,  
as well as a small number of nits and editorial comments.

Major issues:

None

Minor issues:

-- section 2.1, last paragraph: "...format must be translated..."

Is that a normative MUST?

-- section 3.2, 2nd to last paragraph: "... must be compliant ..."

Normative MUST?

-- Security Considerations:

It might be worth having a paragraph discussing how closely the access  
control policy mechanisms for SNMP can be mapped into SYSLOG.

Nits/editorial comments:

-- section 3, first diagram:

The preceding paragraph states that you have exactly one SYSLOG  
message for each SNMP notification, but the diagram shows 3 SNMP  
notifications and 2 SYSLOG messages. Is it reasonable for the SYSLOG  
originator to be able to know and enforce SNMP access control  
policies? (I'm not saying it's not--just that I don't know.)

-- references:

Is ietf-opsawg-syslog-msg-mib really a normative reference? (The  
answer is not obvious to me either way)

RFC 4234 has been obsoleted by 5234. Is the old reference used on  
purpose?