Re: [Json] JSON Log file encoding JSON-L

Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> Wed, 07 May 2014 03:01 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E402B1A0479 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 May 2014 20:01:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XkZX_hHcdoXd for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 May 2014 20:01:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-x22a.google.com (mail-lb0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 021341A0415 for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 May 2014 20:01:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lb0-f170.google.com with SMTP id w7so459549lbi.29 for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 06 May 2014 20:01:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=in7amJzYBDeEz8Kb34iCWpm0hwT5ZX0PHXoZtAJZUPs=; b=WzOzeQq6+RQemQ4RLwRTSIXlqWl1VgvVQ1WnGd505gD+MxlwJwjnFzj+NFYYXsfGux Pb+xszUtVgLpLYPjI8ipQDdQoczqvElr8uryJNIdImN/hfQRyre2T/wLsr2SKt++ghYE 2hwfXcbih6JwAxVBonA5P4n5E5nsq5ZQlcdcVAyk2+5oX0PMSeI9kjp917IOCi6fb99Q 4TCYfB9SfpeBr30W7Ab3dU//S/qnZArOdT2NB0T7p8JVmkyxMFyvW41eXcJtzIW/HsL5 2LXhZW9jq7g0PqvKL1vptnNrs4pTIXYO4b5SGZHvR5B/iNMe4nE841Wtgwxsh/MVZ8ln iVug==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.67.35 with SMTP id k3mr5319829lbt.17.1399431702296; Tue, 06 May 2014 20:01:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.234.229 with HTTP; Tue, 6 May 2014 20:01:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E11545BD2502@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com>
References: <CAMm+LwjB-51z4GoeC0riehmJg1HAddmLAyfMsVOCVM80i=RiMA@mail.gmail.com> <B9D8B85D-EF2C-4B3A-90A4-873C714C06FA@tzi.org> <CAK3OfOhGpUatFotCPwpHw=wu4zphxWOAk6dvX2UOZJRzw23JEA@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOh1R851pBETEJtzM7_rCvrhxedCn5v5==nHumstE9VSRA@mail.gmail.com> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E11545BD241D@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> <CAMm+LwgYus3covb8CXxGJeMSgWsGDR5+B3qg-AuJH5=iUERRhA@mail.gmail.com> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E11545BD2502@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com>
Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 23:01:42 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwhPm1KE2LZJW=87p7kM1N7D=BD_oB1gF2GKCX-FwTGi9w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
To: "Manger, James" <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/y8a-egpZ8dC7umNFEuPryUD4zPA
Cc: JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] JSON Log file encoding JSON-L
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" <json.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json/>
List-Post: <mailto:json@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 03:01:49 -0000

W3C extended log file format is supported by Apache, IIS and most log
file analysis tools.

Interesting that you mention there is an error in the example, that
was the change made when the document was revised. Seems that the old
version has been substituted for the current somehow when they
reformatted it.

I don't think we need to restrict ourselves to one set of tags or
semantics. And I did think about whether we should update the date
format BTW. But it is useful to have some reference point.


On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 10:43 PM, Manger, James
<James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com> wrote:
>>> We now have Nico’s JSON Text Sequences [draft-williams-json-text-sequence],
>>> and Phillip’s JSON Log Format (JSON-L) [draft-hallambaker-jsonl].
>>>
>>> They are basically the same. Can we just keep one? Probably the more generic JSON Text Sequences.
>>> A JSON-L is a JSON Text Sequences where each item is an object.
>>> If a specific log spec is necessary (eg want to standardise log entry elements like "time") it could say "a JSON-L log is a JSON Text Sequence, where the items MUST be objects and these common elements are defined: time, ...".
>
>> We do? Ooops.
>>
>> Didn't see the other draft.
>>
>>
>> I think the discussion moved on a bit from Nico's. He has a lot of
>> discussion I think we have solid reasons to make decisions on.
>
>
>> Importing WD-logfile tags seems like a win to me (but I might be biased).
>
> Maybe, I'm a bit sceptical. Is WD-logfile widely used?
> A JSON version of WD-logfile needs more work. For instance, the latter has "directives" and "entries" distinguished by a leading "#". How do you tell if a JSON-L object is a "directive" or "entry"?
>
> P.S. The example in WD-logfile (960323 version, not 960221) and repeated in JSON-L is wrong.
> "#Date: 12-Jan-1996 00:00:00" should be "#Date: 1996-01-12 00:00:00".
> A JSON version should at least use "1996-01-12T00:00:00Z".
>
> In any case, the syntax & semantics of log entry elements can be separate from the syntax of a resynch-friendly append-friendly series of zero or more JSON values.
>
> --
> James Manger



-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/