[sip-clf] Publication Request for draft-ietf-sipclf-problem-statement
Peter Musgrave <musgravepj@gmail.com> Sun, 17 July 2011 14:10 UTC
Return-Path: <musgravepj@gmail.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 3F59A21F861D for <sip-clf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 07:10:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.565
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.565 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.033, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 kFkLvmUtlTuh for <sip-clf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 07:10:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f54.google.com (mail-fx0-f54.google.com [209.85.161.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EE0921F85EC for <sip-clf@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 07:10:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxe4 with SMTP id 4so6059012fxe.27 for <sip-clf@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 07:09:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=/OCylPi3Xjq1NO8kzgHiD/tm4BJ9Tfx9PO3Z6yUyqc4=; b=wlRtUn4h9BcdD29NDiSwYq11q3/kVmBuEud+XLeA1EQ2xAZsz1bDubrS325ns3fJYE R+bf+6boJ+ufyco6wc26uPQ+DLeLPqXQ+mx1MaTBM4YPs1XrLjHk3CBTyCtiQ7ETwLUq 781F/2OlhCg/mmcC+mfNB+M3k+sREH+JrE/h8=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.16.210 with SMTP id p18mr3821701faa.71.1310911772153; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 07:09:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.223.103.71 with HTTP; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 07:09:32 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 10:09:32 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJH01tbV2OD0W6zVuAxgkm3fkW6bLFD1k0OsAteF32S-GCyOGw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Peter Musgrave <musgravepj@gmail.com>
To: sip-clf@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00151748de7c82d73104a8446e61"
Subject: [sip-clf] Publication Request for draft-ietf-sipclf-problem-statement
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: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 14:10:10 -0000
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sipclf-problem-statement/ has been submitted for IESG publication. Publication request text: (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Peter Musgrave is the document shephard and has read version -07. This version is ready for publication subject to the correction of two nits after AD review. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? Yes. Over the past 18 months the document has seen significant input from a number of people with strong background in SIP. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? No. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. No. (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? The consensus for the fields which any format solution needs to log have been uncontroversial. The minimal set of fields are basic to any SIP record keeping and an extension mechanism allows customization by those who need more. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.) No. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist<http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist.html> and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? There are two minor nits (There are 2 instances of lines with non-RFC5735-compliant IPv4 addresses). These will be addressed after AD review. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. Yes. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? This section exists. There are no IANA considerations (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? There are no such sections. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary The Session Initiation Protocol does not have a common log format, and as a result, each server supports a distinct log format that makes it unnecessarily complex to produce tools to do trend analysis and security detection. This document provides motivation for a common format and defines the mandatory fields for such a log as well as a need to allow extensions. Working Group Summary The problem statement was not contentious. Document Quality During the review process two implementations were developed by two different implementors. These helped clarify some of the details in this document.
- [sip-clf] Publication Request for draft-ietf-sipc… Peter Musgrave