Re: [sip-clf] A primer on syslog.

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> Thu, 04 February 2010 00:24 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: sip-clf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sip-clf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B42DD3A6950 for <sip-clf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 16:24:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.463
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.463 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.136, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j9yJDkkQI6Rn for <sip-clf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 16:24:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 037A43A6936 for <sip-clf@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 16:24:54 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-6.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEACKjaUurR7H+/2dsb2JhbADBVJd9hEYE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.49,401,1262563200"; d="scan'208";a="477788842"
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com ([171.71.177.254]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Feb 2010 00:25:38 +0000
Received: from [192.168.4.177] (rcdn-fluffy-8711.cisco.com [10.99.9.18]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o140Pb3T020060; Thu, 4 Feb 2010 00:25:37 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Impp: xmpp:cullenfluffyjennings@jabber.org
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <023501caa50a$16943c70$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 17:25:36 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A90FB013-09CB-43B3-A7AC-7F7A27F9EF6B@cisco.com>
References: <7505A2C58D8F4FD88B47D10EA74649CD@china.huawei.com><00ce01caa41e$fe5a5ef0$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> <4B68920B.5090908@alcatel-lucent.com> <81F3AF977ADD49E7A883F138ECCC71D0@china.huawei.com> <01eb01caa4ec$0fbe0930$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> <DCBC0046E3434E519A2E9EDB4071C7B6@china.huawei.com> <023501caa50a$16943c70$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com>
To: David Harrington <ietfdbh@comcast.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077)
Cc: SIP-CLF Mailing List <sip-clf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sip-clf] A primer on syslog.
X-BeenThere: sip-clf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Common Log File format discussion list <sip-clf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 00:24:54 -0000

On Feb 3, 2010, at 12:50 PM, David Harrington wrote:

> There are 23
> different facilities defined for use in the <priority field>, ranging
> from "kernel" to system daemons to mail to security to local
> applications. A SIP application would use one of the "local"
> facilities to log messages. 



Just out of curiosity, would it ever make sense for the IETF to designate an facilities value for SIP?



For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html