Re: [sip-clf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sipclf-format-07.txt

Gonzalo Salgueiro <gsalguei@cisco.com> Tue, 23 October 2012 21:56 UTC

Return-Path: <gsalguei@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: sip-clf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sip-clf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16E5211E8105 for <sip-clf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 14:56:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.475
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.475 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.124, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tNM2g8bmkLM9 for <sip-clf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 14:56:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from av-tac-rtp.cisco.com (av-tac-rtp.cisco.com [64.102.19.209]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACE4911E80E0 for <sip-clf@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 14:56:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned
Received: from chook.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-rtp.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q9NLuOL8023021 for <sip-clf@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 17:56:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from dhcp-10-150-54-114.cisco.com (dhcp-10-150-54-114.cisco.com [10.150.54.114]) by chook.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q9NLuIxQ009650; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 17:56:21 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: Gonzalo Salgueiro <gsalguei@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <50870CB8.40908@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 17:56:18 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5A63A1D1-5D2A-4EA8-9E7A-CDA3C9668DE5@cisco.com>
References: <20121005015620.22856.1399.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <869FCF91-1032-4411-A7D5-85CEE6F120E5@cisco.com> <50870CB8.40908@nostrum.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
Cc: "sip-clf@ietf.org Mailing" <sip-clf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sip-clf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sipclf-format-07.txt
X-BeenThere: sip-clf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Common Log File format discussion list <sip-clf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sip-clf>, <mailto:sip-clf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip-clf>
List-Post: <mailto:sip-clf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sip-clf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-clf>, <mailto:sip-clf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 21:56:27 -0000

Thanks Adam. The approach seems reasonable.  I'll make the suggested change.  

Just a few comments inline...

<snip>


> I think the text is a bit confused on what UTF-8 means. The phrase "any characters outside the UTF-8 character set" appears many times, and I'm afraid it doesn't really make any sense.
> 
> What you probably want to do is define a term somewhere in the document to formally specify "Those Things That Must Be Base-64 Encoded". I would recommend something like:
> 
> "For the purposes of this document, we define 'unprintable' to mean a string of octets that: (a) contains an octet with a value in the range of 0 to 31, inclusive; (b) contains an octet with a value of 127; or (c) contains any series of octets greater than or equal to 128 which do not form a valid UTF-8 sequence, as specified by [UNICODE]."

I'll have to expand the definition a bit since there are octets greater than 128 that are non-printable but still valid UTF-8 control characters.  I can go with something like:

"For the purposes of this document, we define 'unprintable' to mean a string of octets that: (a) contains an octet with a value in the range of 0 to 31, inclusive; (b) contains an octet with a value of 127, (c) contains any octet greater than or equal to 128 which is a formatting or control character (such as 128 to 159) within the UTF-8 character set; or (d) falls outside the UTF-8 character range, as specified by [UNICODE]."

Does that sound ok?

> Then, your statements become far simpler; for example: "The Value field for the optional element being logged MUST be Base64 encoded if it is unprintable." And: "For an optionally logged message body (Tag=01) the BEB is set according to whether the message body is unprintable." And: "When optionally logging an entire SIP message (Tag=02) the BEB is set according to whether the message body portion is unprintable."

I'll make the appropriate replacements once we agree on the definition.
> 
> You get the idea.

I do. Thanks.

Cheers,

Gonzalo

> 
> /a
> 
> 
> P.S. The above definition would require adding a reference for [UNICODE], like so:
> 
>    [UNICODE] The Unicode Consortium. The Unicode Standard,
>              Version 6.2.0, (Mountain View, CA: The Unicode
>              Consortium, 2012. ISBN 978-1-936213-07-8)
>              
> <http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode6.2.0/>
> 
> 
>