IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sip-clf] Request for Consensus: Adopt ASCII

"Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@bell-labs.com> Thu, 02 December 2010 21:56 UTC

Return-Path: <vkg@bell-labs.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 5CE3F3A67AB for <sip-clf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 13:56:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.185
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.185 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.414, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 RkYPpWXZHgBS for <sip-clf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 13:56:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com (ihemail2.lucent.com [135.245.0.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73ACF3A6359 for <sip-clf@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 13:56:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from umail.lucent.com (h135-3-40-63.lucent.com [135.3.40.63]) by ihemail2.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id oB2LvZY1001126 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 2 Dec 2010 15:57:35 -0600 (CST)
Received: from shoonya.ih.lucent.com (Knoppix-135185238233.ih.lucent.com [135.185.238.233]) by umail.lucent.com (8.13.8/TPES) with ESMTP id oB2LvZxR017913; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 15:57:35 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <4CF816CA.2070605@bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 15:59:38 -0600
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:1.9.1.15) Gecko/20101027 Fedora/3.0.10-1.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Musgrave <peter.musgrave@magorcorp.com>
References: <D4134C23-AC3E-48E7-BFB4-1D51C2CA51EF@magorcorp.com> <06792DB6-BD48-42C9-B12F-639EA5E6E996@acmepacket.com> <6C54CABA-5BF0-4BA3-8845-1822023FF624@magorcorp.com> <4CDAAC6B.8090707@bell-labs.com> <5319F0AA-5CDE-42F0-BDC3-1A60FA18F2CF@voxeo.com> <745B2172-F6B4-4E3A-B92F-08904067354D@magorcorp.com> <0E35576E-3B0B-41A4-BB58-81207D71E983@cisco.com> <4CF80007.3050700@bell-labs.com> <31DCAA91-4478-4D18-99AE-8A998CE7876C@magorcorp.com>
In-Reply-To: <31DCAA91-4478-4D18-99AE-8A998CE7876C@magorcorp.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.35
Cc: "sip-clf@ietf.org" <sip-clf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sip-clf] Request for Consensus: Adopt ASCII
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, 02 Dec 2010 21:56:21 -0000

On 12/02/2010 03:25 PM, Peter Musgrave wrote:
> I see a need for a distinction between a tag which is not present
> (because e.g. it's a new INVITE with no from tag, or a request and hence
> has no response code) - versus a message in which the tag or response
> code failed to parse.
>
> ? for both does not allow this distinction.

Indeed, I was afraid that we may want to make that distinction.

If we want to make that distinction, then a variation of what
you suggested earlier ("Stick with - and come up with some escape
sequence for it") seems appropriate.  Or maybe some sort of a
digraph (--) or trigraph (---).

Thanks,

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email