Re: [sip-clf] WGLC:draft-ietf-sipclf-problem-statement-06.txt

"Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@bell-labs.com> Fri, 03 June 2011 21:22 UTC

Return-Path: <vkg@bell-labs.com>
X-Original-To: sip-clf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sip-clf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63C35E07D0 for <sip-clf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 14:22:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.549
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eQlQ+Y7ypDGA for <sip-clf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 14:22:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihemail4.lucent.com (ihemail4.lucent.com [135.245.0.39]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9885BE07CA for <sip-clf@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 14:22:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usnavsmail1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.9]) by ihemail4.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id p53LMXgO027781 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 3 Jun 2011 16:22:33 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from umail.lucent.com (umail-ce2.ndc.lucent.com [135.3.40.63]) by usnavsmail1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id p53LMWxt024127 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 3 Jun 2011 16:22:33 -0500
Received: from shoonya.ih.lucent.com (shoonya.ih.lucent.com [135.185.238.235]) by umail.lucent.com (8.13.8/TPES) with ESMTP id p53LMW6u015151; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 16:22:32 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <4DE950A5.8080500@bell-labs.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 16:22:45 -0500
From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@bell-labs.com>
Organization: Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110428 Fedora/3.1.10-1.fc14 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Musgrave <musgravepj@gmail.com>, "Elwell, John" <john.elwell@siemens-enterprise.com>
References: <20110418143004.807.72505.idtracker@ietfc.amsl.com> <A4BBEEE4-4420-4A3A-BD0D-EE72430A6A64@magorcorp.com> <8CB1F01A-91E7-4A02-A984-718AEC84EE0B@magorcorp.com> <96B28772-470F-4010-A372-7432A43CBB0F@magorcorp.com>
In-Reply-To: <96B28772-470F-4010-A372-7432A43CBB0F@magorcorp.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.39
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.9
Cc: sip-clf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sip-clf] WGLC:draft-ietf-sipclf-problem-statement-06.txt
X-BeenThere: sip-clf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Common Log File format discussion list <sip-clf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 21:22:41 -0000

Peter, John: Thank you for reviewing
draft-ietf-sipclf-problem-statement-06 as part of WGLC.

I am attending to both of your comments, as follows.

Regarding Peter's comments in [1], I have put the following
normative text for the From/To headers:

   For the sake of brevity, URI parameters SHOULD NOT be logged.

Also in [1], Peter asks whether it is necessary to indicate
UAS-half and UAC-half.  I think it is best to leave them as
stated, especially since in Table 1 there is a bit of a
difference in how the UAS- and UAC-half treat a couple of
headers (c.f., {Server-,Client-}Txn in the table).

If you can suggest a better suffix instead of "half", I can
easily use that.

Finally in [1], regarding URI parameters MUST be logged: I
have left the text as it currently appears in the draft
("The Request-URI, including any URI parameters.")  I think
it is self-explanatory, but if anyone wants me to put
normative language there, I can do so.

Regarding Peter's comments in [2], the To URI should be the
same as R-URI since it is a direct call.  I will make that
change.

Regarding John's comments in [3], I agree and have took the
sentence that mentions the tag out.

I will issue a new revision early next week.

[1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip-clf/current/msg00497.html
[2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip-clf/current/msg00499.html
[3] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip-clf/current/msg00498.html

Thanks,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA)
Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / vijay.gurbani@alcatel-lucent.com
Web:   http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/