Re: [dispatch] SIP-CLF: text versus binary

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com> Fri, 01 May 2009 14:58 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: dispatch@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29DDD3A7232 for <dispatch@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 May 2009 07:58:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.115
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.115 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.484, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H5mcbtCvRf19 for <dispatch@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 May 2009 07:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 093F53A706A for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 May 2009 07:57:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.40,278,1238976000"; d="scan'208";a="179598000"
Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 May 2009 14:59:05 +0000
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n41Ex5wf022365; Fri, 1 May 2009 07:59:05 -0700
Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n41Ex4iW000227; Fri, 1 May 2009 14:59:05 GMT
Received: from xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.38]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 1 May 2009 10:58:59 -0400
Received: from [161.44.174.156] ([161.44.174.156]) by xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 1 May 2009 10:58:59 -0400
Message-ID: <49FB0E2C.8040907@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 10:58:52 -0400
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com>
References: <AF689C4E-9D79-4C82-87D5-7623D7A08007@standardstrack.com>
In-Reply-To: <AF689C4E-9D79-4C82-87D5-7623D7A08007@standardstrack.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 May 2009 14:58:59.0038 (UTC) FILETIME=[5B6547E0:01C9CA6D]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2306; t=1241189945; x=1242053945; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=pkyzivat@cisco.com; z=From:=20Paul=20Kyzivat=20<pkyzivat@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[dispatch]=20SIP-CLF=3A=20text=20versus =20binary |Sender:=20; bh=egiyKFDewtE3ogZ2ZZ0ax8/xexjebju+fAEVGbCxhX8=; b=vOaHCahc2Wdv5P0VrYNt+zQwNJUAwKZVriVVmFi75GiN+cfRwaZBjA14NS 56RkeRKku7qulRPdFB5sSbsQDPqgmxU2oGYFD5OU/o3yMDs4YTyWaiIgFCcj Xr/9+/GhS2;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=pkyzivat@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; );
Cc: dispatch@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dispatch] SIP-CLF: text versus binary
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 14:58:25 -0000

Eric,

I have pondered the questions you raise for many years, and I still 
don't know. I *think* it is mostly a matter of easing the learning curve 
to get started on something. Once you have worked on it for awhile, you 
have a set of tools, and whether the underlying representation is text 
or binary is the least of concerns. But for those first few weeks before 
you have figured out what tools you need and obtained or built them, a 
text rep is very helpful.

An interesting case study is print formats. A *long* time ago Xerox had 
a binary print representation, called InterPress. It was proprietary and 
not very approachable. Some people left Xerox, formed Adobe, and 
produced a text print format (PostScript), which for some reason was 
vastly more popular. Does it matter that postscript is text rather than 
binary? Probably not in practice, but somehow it did matter. (Or course 
now ps has been pretty much subsumed into pdf, which I think is a binary 
format.)

So, for reasons I still don't fully fathom, I agree with you that its 
probably important to have a text rep as the primary one, even if it is 
suboptimal, and if there is also a binary format people probably won't 
implement it.

	Thanks,
	Paul

Eric Burger wrote:
> I would humbly offer that the number of iterations it took for Theo 
> (super awesome coder), Adam (truly awesome coder), and Vijay (above 
> average coder) to get a half decent binary implementation of a CLF 
> writer and reader highlights the argument for a text-based LOG file.  
> Imagine what an average coder would do.
> 
> Binary file formats are not easy. SIP-CLF is trivial and it is not easy.
> 
> 
> Questions for people to consider:
> 
> Why isn't SIP in a binary format? It would be much easier to generate 
> and parse the message, and the message would be smaller.
> 
> Why is H.248 a text protocol in the wild, even though the binary format 
> had tons of intellectual effort poured into it?
> 
> Why are SNMP MIBs a black art, years after their introduction?
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> dispatch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch