Re: [sip-clf] WGLC: SIPCLF Problem Statement(draft-gurbani-sipclf-problem-statement-01)

"Spencer Dawkins" <> Wed, 27 January 2010 15:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ADD13A6AA4 for <>; Wed, 27 Jan 2010 07:20:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.297
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.297 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.302, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LMXZ6UeK+0-g for <>; Wed, 27 Jan 2010 07:20:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FF9A3A6A5F for <>; Wed, 27 Jan 2010 07:20:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from S73602b ( []) by (node=mrus1) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0Lb441-1O3Bq33aoL-00kEm6; Wed, 27 Jan 2010 10:20:08 -0500
Message-ID: <>
From: "Spencer Dawkins" <>
To: "SIP-CLF Mailing List" <>
References: <>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 09:19:58 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/ti/dq7RQlANQJM//hsHf2+6h7pbJhzpaedj5 ePrciBXlIfJLFc2b4cwuGJVX9ijQuf6g5AriuBg1pu14wmizs2 rfYTuVXO2uDvPMCNW0+JgRvkv2LFoH7RRmsLGH6Qho=
Subject: Re: [sip-clf] WGLC: SIPCLF Problem Statement(draft-gurbani-sipclf-problem-statement-01)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Common Log File format discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 15:20:09 -0000

Just as a wake-up call, we're about halfway through WGLC, and I'm not seeing 
evidence onlist that people are reading this draft and agreeing that we 
should adopt it (or even that we should not adopt it).

I'm assuming that Cullen likes the current version, but his request to adopt 
was actually for the previous version of this draft. Other than Cullen, the 
only post I've seen was from Eric, who is one of the draft authors.

Theo and I are looking for actual statements of support for adopting drafts 
as working group items - in this case, silence is NOT consent.



> Just to let people know, Theo and I agree that this draft should be 
> adopted as a working group draft. After a quick once-over, I think it's 
> solid enough to start WGLC now.
> WGLC will end on 2010/02/05, which gives nearly three weeks for people to 
> post and discuss comments on the mailing list.
> Once WGLC is completed, I will ask Vijay to post a draft-ietf-sipclf 00 
> version addressing WGLC comments. I hope to be able to request publication 
> for that version of the draft-ietf-sipclf version, so please don't be shy 
> about sending comments on the individual draft currently posted (at 
> Thanks,
> Spencer, as co-chair