Re: [apps-discuss] AppsDir review of draft-ietf-sipclf-format-05

Claudio Allocchio <> Thu, 09 February 2012 07:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ACEF21F85E6 for <>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 23:47:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.312
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.312 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.288, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id afLddqy-J1Ad for <>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 23:47:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:760:0:158::29]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44AEF21F85E4 for <>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 23:47:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q197l5QP095456 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:47:05 +0100 (CET)
X-DomainKeys: Sendmail DomainKeys Filter v1.0.2 q197l5QP095456
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail;; c=simple; q=dns; b=Im0x/1Ex6jRfQWoa6a9STAvQoGvGtlbfn2PstJ/hMeGWoOZvlYkxLHRGACUaM4B08 oY1YBUolyawVUgaVD8ktwSDViyyCnZNHnRhyAv7QI7sgSlN3dYuYkGjIVLN2XuYGEDu hZ9rtt/4yikIZXNI3fo1AOnqhPDs2wpHEUuXkfM=
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:47:05 +0100 (CET)
From: Claudio Allocchio <>
To: Gonzalo Salgueiro <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (OSX 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Cc: " Mailing" <>,, Gonzalo Camarillo <>,
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] AppsDir review of draft-ietf-sipclf-format-05
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 07:47:12 -0000

Hello all!

>> * Section "3. Document Conventions"
>> The authors have decided "For the sake of clarity and completeness" to 
>> quote a full section of RFC4475 into this document. However there were 
>> quite long discussions in the Apps Dir in other reviews if this quoting 
>> practice is appropriate or not, because it can lead to discrepacies, 
>> when the quoted document is updated or obsoleted, resuing in confusion 
>> for the readers who just trust the quoted text without checking the 
>> state of the referenced document. I would suggest, as in the other 
>> cases, NOT to quote the external text, but to use an explicit external 
>> reference only, urging the reader to check that "for the sake of 
>> clarity".
> I agree with the position but in this particular case I'm of the mind 
> that removing that text and referencing the RFC diminishes the 
> effectiveness of that section. It is my preference to leave the quoted 
> text (which is very short) embedded in this document as it is critical 
> to understanding the notation used throughout the document.

maybe a possible compromise is to quote the text, as is now, but to add a 
small note which reminds the reader to check the update/obsoletes status 
of RFC4475? ;-)

>> * Section "4. Format"
> This is something that we have discussed and have not found an elegant 
> solution for. While there are maintenance risks it was thought to be 
> very valuable to display the pertinent portion of the complete CLF 
> within the section where that was discussed. I'll do my best to ensure 
> that they are all copied over properly from Figure 1.

as I said, it is a Nit... thanks for taking some time in thinking about 

have a nice day!

Claudio Allocchio             G   A   R   R
                         Senior Technical Officer
tel: +39 040 3758523      Italian Academic and       G=Claudio; S=Allocchio;
fax: +39 040 3758565        Research Network         P=garr; A=garr; C=it;

            PGP Key: