Re: [dispatch] SIP-CLF: Results on ASCII vs. binary representation

["Scott Lawrence" <[e-mail]>]

> Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
> > Depends on how you plan to disambiguate legal characters in the
> > fields from the field separators...

On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 16:45 -0500, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote:

> Right; this is a nagging problem at the back of my head ever
> since Dale pointed it out.  The least impacting way to deal
> with this, I believe, will be not to save display-name type
> of constructs but only addr-spec for URIs.  The generic-param
> construct is another potential problem.  Spaces in it need
> to be escaped or generic-param could be simply unallowed. 

> > But anyway, I think the real question that needs to be answered
> > *first* is "what is the purpose of the CLF?"  What is it going to
> > help admins do?  Is it for troubleshooting, or for registration audit
> > logging, or for IDS systems, etc?
> 
>  From the list above, at least for troubleshooting, logging, and
> IDS systems.  What I do not envision CLF being used for is
> debugging (distinct from troubleshooting) and CDR.

If you're going to include troubleshooting in the list of purposes, then
removing anything from the name-addr fields, or any generic-param is
going to be problematic.  I know you couldn't debug some configurations
on my system if you'd stripped some of the proprietary parameters we
use.