Re: [sip-clf] WGLC: SIPCLF ProblemStatement(draft-gurbani-sipclf-problem-statement-01)

"Spencer Dawkins" <> Tue, 02 February 2010 21:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA80D3A6B7D for <>; Tue, 2 Feb 2010 13:33:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.58
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oxbjjhRqwYrK for <>; Tue, 2 Feb 2010 13:33:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B4DB3A6B2E for <>; Tue, 2 Feb 2010 13:33:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from S73602b ( []) by (node=mrus4) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MfFEA-1NNcHR1U3m-00Oztp; Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:33:43 -0500
Message-ID: <>
From: "Spencer Dawkins" <>
To: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <>, "David Harrington" <>, <>
References: <><00ce01caa41e$fe5a5ef0$> <>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 15:33:26 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19htid20n9eRU0B01g1xGydUBbhJmD07WecqEf WBDgfjfDd29rb9+tSitQusJfQoM/NX5CmjO4YHvWQwWAP3c4vR 3D3p/MPx294BA2wb238iOoJA0ZDNf5MbdRo2zNSBxc=
Subject: Re: [sip-clf] WGLC: SIPCLF ProblemStatement(draft-gurbani-sipclf-problem-statement-01)
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, 02 Feb 2010 21:33:05 -0000

Speaking as co-chair, this time...

>> Everything is just munged together into one problem statement, as if 
>> everybody was in agreement about a single problem to be solved, and the 
>> single solution that should solve all those problems.
> My attempt at a problem statement is given in Section 3 of
> the sipclf draft 
> (
> If this gives you the feeling that everything is munged together,
> I will be happy to work with you on any text you can contribute
> that makes this more transparent.

Where Spencer and Theo think we are, is that we're adopting the next version 
of this draft as a working group draft. We haven't seen anyone disagreeing 
with that.

At that point - which we might as well declare to be "now", because Vijay 
can send in "the next version" as draft-ietf-sipclf at any time, and Theo 
and I will approve it - the working group becomes responsible for the text 
in the working group draft.

That means that it's not up to Vijay and Dave to work this out, with 
everyone else cheering them on from the sidelines - please feel free to send 
text that the editor can incorporate, as we identify that we have consensus 
on it!