Re: [sip-clf] AD review: draft-ietf-sipclf-format-05

Gonzalo Salgueiro <gsalguei@cisco.com> Thu, 09 February 2012 21:01 UTC

Return-Path: <gsalguei@cisco.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 70CF821E804A for <sip-clf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 13:01:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.406
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.406 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.192, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z0jSE0ftvA+0 for <sip-clf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 13:01:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from av-tac-rtp.cisco.com (hen.cisco.com [64.102.19.198]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D94421E8019 for <sip-clf@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 13:01:34 -0800 (PST)
X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned
Received: from chook.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-rtp.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q19L1XFa006846 for <sip-clf@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 16:01:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dhcp-64-102-210-22.cisco.com (dhcp-64-102-210-22.cisco.com [64.102.210.22]) by chook.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q19L1LNS026610; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 16:01:21 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-33-474246821
From: Gonzalo Salgueiro <gsalguei@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F340A33.7030606@bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 16:01:21 -0500
Message-Id: <446A716C-A606-4812-AD1E-5CB8739A9F2D@cisco.com>
References: <4F21DD3E.7000002@nostrum.com> <31A5C897-B767-4527-9346-905A80977F35@cisco.com> <4F33E3D0.7000605@nostrum.com> <4F340A33.7030606@bell-labs.com>
To: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@bell-labs.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: "sip-clf@ietf.org" <sip-clf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sip-clf] AD review: draft-ietf-sipclf-format-05
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: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:01:35 -0000

On Feb 9, 2012, at 1:02 PM, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote:

> On 02/09/2012 09:18 AM, Robert Sparks wrote:
>> Inline, trimming to points with responses
> 
> Robert: Some feedback on your responses inline.
> 
> With respect to extending the Transport flag, you wrote that:
> 
>> That's a choice the group should make - the document just needs to be
>> explicit about what's extensible (for all the fields) and if a field
>> is extensible, what the mechanism looks like. For the transport
>> field, as an individual contributor, I prefer the IANA registry
>> approach.
> 
> I agree that IANA is cleaner.  It will be nice if we hear more views
> from the WG so we can proceed accordingly.

I'll weigh in that I think the IANA registration route is more elegant and practical from an extensibility point of view.

Regards,

Gonzalo