Re: [sip-clf] Defining Pros and Cons of ASCII/IPFIX

[Saverio Niccolini <[e-mail]>]

I am also in favor of specifying both, from a commercial perspective
this makes a lot of sense to give people in different markets what
they need.

Saverio

============================================================
Dr. Saverio Niccolini
Manager, Real-Time Communications Group
NEC Laboratories Europe, Network Research Division     
Kurfuerstenanlage 36, D-69115 Heidelberg
Tel.     [phone]
NEC*NET Phone: [phone]
Fax:     [phone]
e-mail:  [e-mail]
============================================================
NEC Europe Limited Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria
Road, London W3 6BL Registered in England 2832014

  


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> Behalf Of Hadriel Kaplan
> Sent: 27 October 2010 19:28
> To: Peter Musgrave
> Cc: List SIP-CLF Mailing
> Subject: Re: [sip-clf] Defining Pros and Cons of ASCII/IPFIX
> 
> 
> At a recent conference I asked a SIP monitoring vendor which format
> they thought we should specify, and surprisingly they said "do both".
> I asked them why, and they said there was a market for both ascii and
> binary formats - that monitoring systems would prefer binary ones, but
> that humans prefer ascii style ones; and that in the Enterprise market
> ascii was more dominant, while in the SP market binary was more
> dominant.  They said we wouldn't be able to choose just one in the IETF
> - because whichever we picked there'd still be a market for the other
> and that market would continue the status-quo of proprietary formats or
> settle on some de-facto one.
> 
> In thinking about this more I think I agree with them.  It'd be like us
> picking a Registrar database access protocol as well as the fields in
> it - we could specify SQL or DIAMETER, but in some markets it'll be one
> not the other no matter which one we choose. (or it'll be Active
> Directory, etc.)
> 
> -hadriel
> 
> On Oct 27, 2010, at 11:23 AM, Peter Musgrave wrote:
> 
> > Hi all,
> >
> > As co-chair I am looking for a way to make a determination about how
> to meet the groups decision to move forward with just one format in a
> WG which has good support for two formats.
> >
> > In my (personal) opinion I think the objective is to develop
> something that will be widely implemented. I would like to solicit
> input from a larger audience - but first I think we need to frame the
> pros and cons.
> >
> > I would like to suggest the following:
> >
> > 1) Use the list and the Beijing meeting to come to a consensus on the
> pros and cons of each and the applications which may favour one format
> vs another.
> >
> > 2) Place these pros/cons on the WG Wiki [I can act as editor]
> >
> > 3) Solicit input from SIP Implementors - referring them to the WG
> WIki
> > - use the Columbia sip-implementors, sipforum list and SIPT27
> >
> > 4) Review the feedback and try to come to a conclusion on the list
> (or failing that, in Prague at IETF80)
> >
> > I will be at SIPIT27 - so I can raise awareness of this discussion in
> that community.
> >
> > How do people feel about this approach?
> >
> > I welcome any other/additional ways to resolve this issue.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Peter Musgrave
> > co-chair
> >
> >
> >
> > <ATT00001..c>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sip-clf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-clf