Re: [sip-clf] draft CLF charter

Just to stay on the same page :D

I had a short chat with Dave Harrington Monday, and he asked "why not 
IPFIX?" - has anyone looked at IPFIX yet?

I know Glen Zorn's question in February was "why not SYSLOG?" - the answer 
then, from Eric Burger, was (paraphrasing) "SYSLOG's the envelope, CLF might 
use SYSLOG but needs to define what goes in the envelope".

The answer may be the same for IPFIX, and we'll probably need to figure this 
out, but if anyone has already looked at this, that would be great to know.

Thanks,

Spencer

> Just to make sure we are all on the same page:
>
> On Jul 21, 2009, at 5:25 PM, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote:
>
>> Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
>>> A few comments after the first reading of the charter.
>>
>> Dan: Thanks for your feedback; more inline.
>>
>>> - Is it Common Log File as it appears at the first instance, or  Common
>>> Log Format?
>>
>> CLF expands to Common Log File, though colloquially you will
>> see references to "the CLF format", which simply means the
>> specific fields and their representation.
>
> This is something we need to state more clearly.
>
> Are we defining a file are we defining a format that might go in a file?
>
> I think the proposals I've read so far are trying to do the second.
> Does anyone disagree?
>
> I was planning to  change the word File Dan is pointing  to in the
> proposed charter to Format.
>
> RjS
> _______________________________________________
> sip-clf mailing list
> sip-clf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-clf 