[sip-clf] Pub Req. for draft-ietf-sipclf-format-05

[Peter Musgrave <[e-mail]>]

draft-ietf-sipclf-format-05

(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 shepherd. He has read this version and believes it is ready for publication.

  (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?  
The document has had adequate review from key members of the WG as well as members active in SIP and IPFIX WGs. 

  (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. 
There are no specific concerns.
There are no IPR disclosures for this document.

  (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 WG as a whole has accepted this document as a reasonable format. Historically the WG considered
two approaches - the text based format described here and a binary format motivated by the desire to 
stream to an IPFIX logging entity. This stalled progress in the WG for some time. Eventually the WG
was persuaded that for a file logging format in the SIPCLF charter the text format met the needs and that
the datamodel developed could be used as the basis for specifying a binary log streaming format within the
IPFIX community if there was sufficient interest in doing so. 

Since this decision there has not been any contrary statements made during the last several review cycles of this document. 

  (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 
        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 is one NIT error (normative reference to the problem statement) that can be resolved when there is an
RFC number for the problem statement. 

One reference is reported as unused - even though the reference is on page 21 and appears properly formatted.

  (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]. 
See comment about NIT error above.

  (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? 
Yes.

  (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? 
Not applicable.

  (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 document describes a standard indexed ASCII format for the logging of SIP messages
        sent and received by a SIP entity. The format adheres to the SIPCLF data model defined by
        [insert RFC reference]. The format is fully extensible as it provides a mechanism for 
        logging any optional element, including vendor specific extensions to allow it to be 
        tailored to the needs of specific implementations. 

     Working Group Summary 
        The WG debated the relative merits of ASCII versus binary encoding of logging
        information. This was primarily a debate from people who wanted to use IPFIX
        style logging servers versus those who wanted to use text based log tools and
        scripts.  

     Document Quality 
        There were two implementations of the sipclf logging format. These implementors 
        helped find areas in earlier drafts where details were incomplete or ambiguous.