[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [Syslog-sec] SNMP parameters in syslog message - sequenceId



I wouldn't even rate it "nice" to have; I think consistency between
SNMP sequence id and syslog sequence id has no benefit.

dbh 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: syslog-sec-bounces@www.employees.org 
> [mailto:syslog-sec-bounces@www.employees.org] On Behalf Of 
> Sharon Chisholm
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 3:53 PM
> To: syslog-sec@employees.org
> Subject: RE: [Syslog-sec] SNMP parameters in syslog message - 
> sequenceId
> 
> hi
> 
> So, are we only debating whether it starts with 0 or 1 and 
> otherwise are
> happy with the proposed text? I have a slight preference towards 1. 
> 
> Note that when I suggested this I was not thinking of 
> alignment with the
> SNMP protocol level sequence ID. I don't really 'see' this at the
> application level. Consistency with this is a 'nice to have' 
> at most for me.
> 
> > ####
> > 7.3.1  sequenceId
> > 
> >    The "sequenceId" parameter allows to track the sequence in
> > which the
> >    sender sent the messages.  It is an integer that MUST be set to
1
> >    when the syslog function is started	and MUST be 
> > increased with every
> >    message up to a maximum value of 4,294,967,295.  If that value
is
> >    reached, the next message must be sent with a sequenceId of 1.
> > ####
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: syslog-sec-bounces@willers.employees.org
> [mailto:syslog-sec-bounces@willers.employees.org] On Behalf Of David
B
> Harrington
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 12:19 PM
> To: 'Rainer Gerhards'; syslog-sec@employees.org
> Subject: RE: [Syslog-sec] SNMP parameters in syslog message - 
> sequenceId
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> If you want **consistency** with SNMP, shouldn't you adopt 
> the whole range
> used by SNMP: -214783648..214783647?
> 
> I don't think syslog and SNMP will use this ID in an 
> "interoperable" manner,
> since syslog requests will not be sent as SNMP requests, and 
> vice-versa. I
> cannot envision a use-case where having the same request-id 
> range matters. 
> 
> The recent discussions show a desire to provide better 
> consistency and/or
> coordination between syslog and SNMP, and I support such 
> consistency and
> coordination, but I don't think it within the WG charter, and 
> it is very
> obvious the details of such coordination have not been 
> thought through by
> the WG. Coordination between SNMP and syslog could be 
> improved, but it might
> be better done as a separate project. Coordination between 
> the two will need
> to start with some standardization of syslog message content, 
> not just the
> message format.
> 
> David Harrington
> dbharrington@comcast.net
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rainer Gerhards [mailto:rgerhards@hq.adiscon.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 11:55 AM
> > To: ietfdbh@comcast.net; syslog-sec@employees.org
> > Subject: RE: [Syslog-sec] SNMP parameters in syslog message - 
> > sequenceId
> > 
> > David,
> > 
> > I let Tom comment on the 0/1 issue but will change it back 
> to 0 if I 
> > don't hear any good argument for 1.
> > 
> > Regarding the range - wouldn't it make SNMP interop simpler if we
> just
> > go for 0..214783647. I think that range is still large
> > enough. So there
> > is no need to introduce potential problems...
> > 
> > Comments appreciated.
> > 
> > Rainer
> > 
> > > I'm going to disagree that this should start at and rollover to
1 
> > > "because that's the way SNMP does it". The RFC2578 SMIv2 
> > > recommendation of starting at 1 rather
> > than 0 is for
> > > enumerations, not message identifiers.
> > > 
> > > The SNMP request-id does not start at 1, and roll over to 1.
>From 
> > > RFC3416:
> > >   PDU ::= SEQUENCE {
> > >            request-id INTEGER (-214783648..214783647),
> > > 
> > > [the range used is due to the fact that the ASN.1 INTEGER type
is
> a
> > > 32-bit signed value, not unsigned. If syslog uses unsigned
> encoding,
> > > the 0..4294967295 range is fine.]
> > > 
> > > David Harrington
> > > dbharrington@comcast.net
> > > co-chair IETF SNMPv3 WG, concluded
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: syslog-sec-bounces@www.employees.org
> > > > [mailto:syslog-sec-bounces@www.employees.org] On Behalf Of 
> > > > Rainer Gerhards
> > > > Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 11:27 AM
> > > > To: syslog-sec@employees.org
> > > > Subject: RE: [Syslog-sec] SNMP parameters in syslog message - 
> > > > sequenceId
> > > > 
> > > > Tom,
> > > > 
> > > > thanks for the reply and the text suggestion. Changed it
> according
> > > to
> > > > your suggested text which exactly described what I wanted to
> > > > suggest ;)
> > > > As a thanks, I've also change the ID to "sequenceId" - if
others
> > > > complain, I can change it back. I've now reserved 0 for
special
> > > cases,
> > > > which means the rollover is also to 1 and not to 0.
> > > > 
> > > > The text now reads as follows:
> > > > 
> > > > ####
> > > > 7.3.1  sequenceId
> > > > 
> > > >    The "sequenceId" parameter allows to track the sequence in
> > > > which the
> > > >    sender sent the messages.  It is an integer that MUST 
> > be set to 1
> > > >    when the syslog function is started	and MUST be 
> > > > increased with every
> > > >    message up to a maximum value of 4,294,967,295.  If
> > that value is
> > > >    reached, the next message must be sent with a sequenceId of
> 1.
> > > > ####
> > > > 
> > > > Rainer
> > > > 
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Tom Petch [mailto:nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com]
> > > > > Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 10:15 PM
> > > > > To: Rainer Gerhards; syslog
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Syslog-sec] SNMP parameters in syslog message
- 
> > > > > sequenceId
> > > > > 
> > > > > <inline>
> > > > > Tom Petch
> > > > > 
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Rainer Gerhards" <rgerhards@hq.adiscon.com>
> > > > > To: <syslog-sec@employees.org>
> > > > > Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 11:24 AM
> > > > > Subject: [Syslog-sec] SNMP parameters in syslog message
> > > > > (renamed subject)
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > > 7.3.1  sequenceID
> > > > > 
> > > > >    The "sequenceID" parameter allows to track the sequence
in
> > > > > which the
> > > > >    sender sent the messages.  It is an integer that MUST be 
> > > > reset to 0
> > > > >    at reboot and MUST be monotnically incremented with each
> > > message
> > > > >    sent.  Its maximum value is 4,294,967,295.  If that value
> > > > > is reached,
> > > > >    the next message must be emited with a sequenceID of 0.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Uh huh. Everywhere, I look monotonic has the same,
> > > > > well-defined meaning which is
> > > > > that the value only changes in one direction.  So
> > > > > 99 77 23 5 5 5 3 3 1 -1
> > > > > is a monotonic sequence as is
> > > > > 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 5 7 68 79 123
> > > > > To quote Merriam-Webster,
> > > > > " having the property either of never increasing or of never

> > > > > decreasing as the
> > > > > values of the independent variable or the subscripts of the 
> > > > > terms increase
> > > > > <monotonic functions> <a monotonic sequence>"
> > > > > 
> > > > > Some words change their meaning as they travel around the
> > > > > world but I do not
> > > > > think this is one of them:-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > If you want each value to be greater than (not greater than
> > > > > or equal to) the
> > > > > previous one, then I
> > > > > think you want 'strictly increasing' but I would suggest
> instead
> > > > > 'It is an integer that MUST be set to 0 when the syslog
> > > > > function is started and
> > > > > MUST be increased with every message up to a maximum value
of 
> > > > > 4,294,967,295.  If
> > > > > that value is reached, the next message must be sent with a 
> > > > > sequenceID of 0.'
> > > > > 
> > > > > But I also question the use of zero; zero is special, best
> > > > > avoided unless really
> > > > > wanted (as in SNMP index values and enumerations) so I 
> > > > > suggest starting at one.
> > > > > 
> > > > > And I would prefer sequenceId to sequenceID (perhaps because
> > > > > I use so much
> > > > > Snmp:-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Syslog-sec mailing list
> > > > Syslog-sec@www.employees.org 
> > > > http://www.employees.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog-sec
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Syslog-sec mailing list
> Syslog-sec@www.employees.org
> http://www.employees.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog-sec
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Syslog-sec mailing list
> Syslog-sec@www.employees.org
> http://www.employees.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog-sec
> 


_______________________________________________
Syslog-sec mailing list
Syslog-sec@www.employees.org
http://www.employees.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog-sec