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

But we're not asking for both - the point of today's meeting was to agree to pick ascii.  Some of us will also (separately) ask for a sipclf charter change or dispatch item to go do a real-time exporting mechanism for SIP message/flow information for monitoring.

-hadriel
p.s. btw, there *are* implementations of H.248 in binary - one's from a vendor right here in China.  
p.p.s. There is some delicious irony having SIP being a protocol easily read by humans and very hard to read by machines, while a logging format for troubleshooting SIP could be hard to read by humans but easily read by machines. :)

On Nov 8, 2010, at 7:18 PM, Eric Burger wrote:

> I believe in de Toquville.  History repeats itself, and I see it repeating...
> 
> What will happen in SIPCLF is a repeat of H.248.
> 
> Since we cannot agree, we will agree to do both ASCII and binary (IPFIX).
> 
> Binary will be theoretically more efficient than ASCII.
> 
> Binary will be theoretically more useful for service providers.
> 
> ASCII, like the Internet, will work well enough for everyone.
> 
> Binary will die a quick death in the marketplace.
> 
> Personally, I am tired of arguing. Let us say we will do both, and the market will winnow things down to a single format.  I may be proved wrong, and that single format will be IPFIX.  Fine with me: so long as we end up with a single format, I will be happy.
> 
> That said, just ask Cullen: I have a strong track record on betting on IETF protocols.  I am willing to put USD 50 that within three years there will be one and only one format, and that format will be ASCII.  Any takers?
> 
> On Oct 27, 2010, at 11:23 PM, 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> sip-clf mailing list
>> sip-clf@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-clf
> 
> <smime.p7s><ATT00001..c>