Re: [sip-clf] Request for Consensus: Adopt ASCII

[Gonzalo Salgueiro <[e-mail]>]

Peter - 

There might be value in converging as a group on many of these lingering issues that have recently been raised before submitting the -00 version of the WG doc. 

These issues include:

- Should we use indexing at all versus tab delimited? or should we stick with just pointers? or go with do away with the indexing but still log the field lengths?
- Do we use TAB or spaceE as field separators?
- Update the presentation of optional fields from something like: <mandatory fields>	01,07,foo.bar	02,0b,hello world      to something like: <mandatory fields> 1="foo.bar" 2="hello world"
- Should we add vendor specified fields in the optionally logged portion (using enterprise numbers or related mechanism)
- What format do we use to log a field that cannot be parsed?
- How do we log a missing field? Stick with - and come up with some escape sequence for it? or do we log all fields which are interpreted/derived not use "", but all fields which are the literal string use " ?
- While we have to consensus that logging bodies (SDP and otherwise) is capped at 4k and optional, how much of of this should be specified in the Problem Statement and how much in the ASCII draft?  For something that is considered option, do we need to decide on how to represent a multi-line body in a format which tries to use a single text line?

Can we generate some productive discussion on these with the intent of getting consensus and finally get these issues resolved? Closing on these will improve our starting point and  will expedite progress on the draft

Regards,

Gonzalo


On Nov 29, 2010, at 2:55 PM, Peter Musgrave wrote:

> (as chair)
> 
> I have not seen any contrary opinions on the list. 
> 
> The WG will adopt the ASCII draft as a working doc.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Peter Musgrave
> 
> On 2010-11-10, at 9:07 PM, Dan Burnett wrote:
> 
>> +1
>> 
>> On Nov 10, 2010, at 9:30 AM, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote:
>> 
>>> On 11/09/2010 03:51 PM, Peter Musgrave wrote:
>>>> [Consensus Call] As discussed in the Beijing session, I would like
>>>> to ask for a consensus call for the sip-clf group to adopt ascii as
>>>> the format to proceed with under the present charter.
>>> 
>>> And Hadriel Kaplan asked for a clarification:
>>>> To be clear, you're asking for a consensus call on the sip-clf group
>>>> to adopt *an* ascii format, not necessarily the indexed-ascii format
>>>> as it stands right now in its draft, correct?
>>> 
>>> To which, Peter replied:
>>>> Correct
>>> 
>>> So ... yes, I support adopting an ASCII format.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> - vijay
>>> -- 
>>> Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
>>> 1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA)
>>> Email: vkg@{alcatel-lucent.com,bell-labs.com,acm.org}
>>> Web:   http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> sip-clf mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-clf
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> sip-clf mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-clf
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sip-clf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-clf