Proposed ULP BOF Agenda

Minutes

10      Presentation:  Universal structured logging is a good thing

30      Discussion:    A successful Universal Logging Protocol's requirements
        might include the following.  We won't decide on the problems, just
        consider if they are hard or easy, within scope or outside of it.

          - A lightweight client implementation must be easy to achieve.
          - Is the model that each (client) host has one ULP server?  In
            other words, ULP configuration would not be available at the
            'user' level, it would be a system service.
          - Are there compatibility requirements with syslog, NT event 
            logger, others?
          - Should ULP use TCP or UDP?
          - It should be a String based protocol.
          - Should we allow only logging or also retrieval and erasing 
            of entries from the client side (as per the NT logger).
          - Security (bidirectional authentication?  encryption? overcoming
            risks of denial of service attacks?)
          - Management:  Should a ULP server be configurable via SNMP?  An
            ULP client?  How does ULP tie in with RMON2?
          - Configuration:  Should there be any standard way to configure
            a host's ULP server (DHCP, for instance?  Or by using SLP?)
          - Server to server extensions?  (Should we offer control how logs 
            get forwarded and maintain a 'path' of where they have been?)
          - API: should one be offered as Informational, Standards Track?
          - Binary compatibiliby of API? protocol on-the-wire compatibility?
            Are these good features?  Should we pay the price for them?

10      Is ULP really a good thing?  Is it a well specified project?
        Who wants to work on it?  Who would follow the work?  
        Who would use it?

10      Draft a charter, get volunteers