Re: [sip-clf] New CLF Syntax draft (text with index)

"Christer Holmberg" <> Tue, 19 May 2009 11:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7170F3A6B72 for <>; Tue, 19 May 2009 04:44:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.867
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.867 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.382, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qK114IMQpZvX for <>; Tue, 19 May 2009 04:44:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9EE43A6B10 for <>; Tue, 19 May 2009 04:44:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3c-b7bc6ae0000009e3-43-4a129c14aa85
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id AC.B8.02531.41C921A4; Tue, 19 May 2009 13:46:28 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 19 May 2009 13:46:25 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 13:46:24 +0200
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: [sip-clf] New CLF Syntax draft (text with index)
Thread-Index: AcnP5IISUZ/eW2bzRa+c6Ct9YDxz4wIkqvng
References: <> <> <>
From: "Christer Holmberg" <>
To: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 May 2009 11:46:25.0374 (UTC) FILETIME=[704F8FE0:01C9D877]
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Subject: Re: [sip-clf] New CLF Syntax draft (text with index)
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: Tue, 19 May 2009 11:44:57 -0000


>>I haven't followed the what-encoding-to-use discussion in detail (I 
>>don't have any personal preference), and I appologise if the following

>>has already been discussed.
>>Have people taken into consideration the text in the body handling 
>>draft, which says that binary data in message bodies SHOULD be 
>>transfered using "pure" binary encoding.
>>I know what we are not talking about a message body type now, but do 
>>we want SIP entities to have to support different kind of binary
>>They may of course have to do that anyway, if they support protocols 
>>etc outside our control, but still...
>Christer: For CLF purpose, if a binary body is to be logged, 
>it seems appropriate to uuencode it or something along those 
>lines, no?


>Or am I missing the point of your question?

My question was why we choose to different binary encoding (no matter
what we are logging) than we use in binary message bodies.