A YANG Data Model for Syslog Configuration

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: netmod-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, kwatsen@juniper.net, netmod@ietf.org, Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model@ietf.org, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, bclaise@cisco.com, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: Protocol Action: 'A YANG Data Model for Syslog Configuration' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-26.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'A YANG Data Model for Syslog Configuration'
  (draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-26.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Network Modeling Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Warren Kumari and Benoit Claise.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:

Technical Summary

    This document defines a YANG data model for the configuration of a
    syslog process.  It is intended this model be used by vendors who
    implement syslog in their systems.

Working Group Summary

  Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For 
  example, was there controversy about particular points or 
  were there decisions where the consensus was particularly 

    Yes, the model initially had defined support for configuring
    Syslog over TPC (RFC 6587).  However, after reviewing the
    reasoning for why RFC 6587 was made HISTORIC, as decided to
    remove the support.  Some stated that their companies support
    Syslog over TCP and now they would have to augment this model
    with a vendor-specific extension.  There may be a subtle
    distinction between IETF defining an insecure protocol versus
    defining a data model to configure, amongst other things, an
    insecure protocol.  We believe we did the right thing, from
    an IETF perspective, but please double-check this.

Document Quality
  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a 
  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to 
  implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that 
  merit special mention as having done a thorough review, 
  e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a 
  conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If 
  there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, 
  what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type 
  review, on what date was the request posted?

    This draft defines a data model (not a protocol).  So far,
    two vendors have indicated that they're interested in
    implementing this data model.  There was a YANG Doctor
    review on the -17 that was successful:



  The Shepherd is Kent Watsen.  The AD is Benoit Claise.