Re: [sip-clf] New co-chair/IETF78/Moving Forward

Ah - I missed that. Good stuff.

Rob - does this cover what you were looking for in your comment from Annaheim?

Peter

On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 3:10 AM, Saverio Niccolini
<Saverio.Niccolini@neclab.eu> wrote:
> Dear Peter,
>
>> Also, Rob Sparks had requested concrete examples of logs using the SIP
>> torture tests as a source. Volunteers?
>
> Well, we actually did that...
>
> Please have a look at:
> Section 5.1. A tool producing an IPFIX file format for SIPCLF of
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-niccolini-sipclf-ipfix-02
>
> where we took examples from the Section 3.1 of [RFC3665]
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3665#section-3.1
>
> we used RFC 3665 instead of the torture tests since we felt the
> torture tests are actually meant for a different scope, we needed
> basic call flow examples and RFC 3665 was more suited for that...
>
> Cheers,
> Saverio
>
> ============================================================
> Dr. Saverio Niccolini
> Manager, Real-Time Communications Group
> NEC Laboratories Europe, Network Research Division
> Kurfuerstenanlage 36, D-69115 Heidelberg
> Tel.     +49 (0)6221 4342-118
> Fax:     +49 (0)6221 4342-155
> e-mail:  saverio.niccolini@nw.neclab.eu
> ============================================================
> NEC Europe Limited Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria
> Road, London W3 6BL Registered in England 2832014
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: sip-clf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sip-clf-bounces@ietf.org] On
>> Behalf Of Peter Musgrave
>> Sent: 29 May 2010 17:59
>> To: sip-clf@ietf.org
>> Subject: [sip-clf] New co-chair/IETF78/Moving Forward
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> First, thanks to Spencer for his work with this group. He has stepped
>> down as the co-chair since he is now active in the IAB.
>>
>> I will be joining Theo as the new co-chair of this group.
>>
>> I have been reading past threads and current docs (I will post
>> as-individual comments in the next few days). There has been a lot of
>> good discussion
>>
>> It seems that after a flurry of activity leading up to Anaheim - we
>> have hit the "post meeting let-down".
>>
>> It seems to me that:
>> 1) We need to continue with the problem statement [especially closing
>> on the "what" or "semantics" to be logged]
>> 2) Discussion on IPFIX needs to continue.
>> 3) We need an individual draft to start the discussion on the non-IPFIX
>> option. [Volunteers?]
>>
>> and that these should be the basis for a discussion at IETF78.
>>
>> Will we have quorum and people who can discuss these items in
>> Maastricht? Please let me know ASAP and I will request a meeting slot.
>>
>> The minutes of IETF77 showed:
>> "Chair: Please hum for one format only or for two options? Strong
>> consensus in the room for working on both options."
>>
>> So item (3) above is a desire to get this "other option" out in the
>> world so we can discuss it in parallel with IPFIX.
>>
>> Also, Rob Sparks had requested concrete examples of logs using the SIP
>> torture tests as a source. Volunteers?
>>
>> This WG was perhaps a bit optimistic in the initial milestones (which
>> currently call for problem statement to IESG in Jan 2010 and spec.
>> WGLC in Mar 2010.)
>>
>> Can I get an indication from people who are willing to do work on what
>> they think is realistic for new milestones? Can we get everything in
>> play for a substantial discussion at IETF78?
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Peter Musgrave
>> _______________________________________________
>> sip-clf mailing list
>> sip-clf@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-clf
>