Re: [secdir] review of draft-ietf-cdni-logging.15

["Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Klaas,

> On 4 Mar 2015, at 11:48, Klaas Wierenga (kwiereng) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>>> 
>>> * Paragraph 3.2  CDNI Logging File Structure
>>> 
>>> You state that you chose a format as close as possible to the W3C ELF Format. I’d like to see a short explanation why you can not use that format, and whether it would be an option to extend that format rather than defining a new format that is slightly different but is essentially a form and could over time be significantly different.
>> 
>> The W3C ELF specification, while commonly used, is somewhat underspecified and only a draft document. The document says:
>> “
>> This is a W3C Working Draft for review by W3C members and other interested parties. It is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use W3C Working Drafts as reference material or to cite them as other than "work in progress”.
>> “
>> So it does not seem appropriate to simply reuse that spec, or even to use it as a stable base to extend from.
>> 
>> 
>> Besides, we’ve really started from ELF and diverged where necessary or useful.
>> Several of the directives we needed do not have any equivalent in ELF. Quite a few fields we needed do not have an equivalent in ELF, and/or do not have a totally unambigous description.
>> Also we needed to be able to carry logs for non-HTTP protocols.
> 
> ok, that is a convincing argument. How about including a statement to that extent, something along the lines of: “we took ELF as a starting point and reused where possible and expanded when necessary”

Sounds good. I’ve added:
"
The W3C Extended Log File Format was used as a starting point, reused where possible and expanded when necessary.
"


I think we have converged on everything else.

Cheers

Francois