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

Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com> Sat, 30 January 2010 00:50 UTC

Return-Path: <eburger@standardstrack.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 3ED403A6927 for <sip-clf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:50:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.573
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.573 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.026, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 ytv4Zevch4xg for <sip-clf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:50:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gs19.inmotionhosting.com (gs19.inmotionhosting.com [205.134.252.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23F8F3A635F for <sip-clf@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:50:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ip68-100-199-8.dc.dc.cox.net ([68.100.199.8] helo=[192.168.15.178]) by gs19.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <eburger@standardstrack.com>) id 1Nb1Y3-00065U-OZ; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:50:52 -0800
From: Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com>
To: Spencer Dawkins <spencer@wonderhamster.org>
In-Reply-To: <B0C5970AD6DD461FAFD3A9EFD1A72A8F@china.huawei.com>
X-Priority: 3
References: <7505A2C58D8F4FD88B47D10EA74649CD@china.huawei.com> <4E300CA47C49464FA3D7B57F96443DA3@china.huawei.com> <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CAB4EC4DCE@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <B0C5970AD6DD461FAFD3A9EFD1A72A8F@china.huawei.com>
Message-Id: <EC3BB323-0157-4C76-8E14-E327184460CB@standardstrack.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 19:50:55 -0500
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - gs19.inmotionhosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - standardstrack.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Cc: SIP-CLF Mailing List <sip-clf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sip-clf] WGLC: SIPCLF ProblemStatement(draft-gurbani-sipclf-problem-statement-01)
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: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 00:50:36 -0000

I clearly think it's ready to go :-)

On Jan 29, 2010, at 12:37 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:

> John, thank you for the as-always-careful read and comments...
>
> Anyone else seeing anything that the working group needs to know  
> about?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Spencer
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Elwell, John" <john.elwell@siemens-enterprise.com 
> >
> To: "Spencer Dawkins" <spencer@wonderhamster.org>rg>; "SIP-CLF Mailing  
> List" <sip-clf@ietf.org>
> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 7:56 AM
> Subject: RE: [sip-clf] WGLC: SIPCLF ProblemStatement(draft-gurbani- 
> sipclf-problem-statement-01)
>
>
> I have reviewed the draft. Generally it is in good shape and pretty  
> well ready to go, apart from the following minor issues.
>
> 1. A general comment:
> In section 1 it states:
> "This document uses the term "SIP Server" that is defined to include
>  the following SIP entities: user agent server , registrar, redirect
>  server, a SIP proxy in the role of user agent server, and a B2BUA in
>  the role of a user agent server."
> The first issue is that we define the term "SIP server", but  
> throughout the rest of the document we sometimes talk about "SIP  
> server" and sometimes about "SIP entity" (see, for example, section  
> 3). We should be consistent.
>
> Secondly, the definition specifically excludes UACs. This seems to  
> suggest that a UAC (i.e., a UA initiating a transaction) should not  
> include that transaction in the log file, yet when acting as a UAS  
> (i.e., receiving a transaction) it should. In my opinion we should  
> talk about UAs, not UASs or UACs (except where we are specifically  
> in a context where UAC or UAS applies). In fact, in 5.1 it  
> specifically DOES include UAC.
>
> A related nit: In Section 4: "This
>  format can be used by SIP clients, SIP Servers, proxies, and B2BUAs."
> The term SIP server is already defined to include proxies and  
> B2BUAs, so this is inconsistent.
>
> So we need a term that includes any SIP entity (in my opinion "SIP  
> entity" would do fine), and we should stick to that one term.
>
> 2. Specific comments in section 8:
> "remotehost:  The DNS name or IP address of the upstream client."
> Couldn't it also be that of the upstream server?
>
> "contactlist:  Contact URIs in the response, if any.  A "-" field
>     value may be used if there aren't any Contact URIs."
> Why are we concerned only with contact URIs in responses, and not in  
> requests?
>
> "but to be safe, the working group
>     should okay this since a specific SIP CLF format has not been
>     defined yet."
> This sounds like text that should be removed before publication.
>
> "To get a gist of how these correlation directives
>     help, please see Section 6 of a predecessor [5] to this draft."
> Is this really meant to be retained - the reference will have expired?
>
> Likewise the note at the end of section 8.
>
> 3. Specific comments in section 8:
> "Accordingly, if the SIP CLF file is to be moved from
>  the generating host, secure FTP or secure email must be used  
> instead."
> Should change to:
> "Accordingly, if the SIP CLF file is to be moved from
>  the generating host, a secure protocol such as secure FTP or secure  
> email must be used instead."
>
> 4. RFC 2119 is referenced and terms defined, but I didn't find any  
> normative language in the document.
>
> 5. Is RFC 3261 really a normative reference? There is nothing in the  
> CLF document I can implement, and therefore there is nothing from  
> RFC 3261 I need in order to implement.
>
> 5. Nits:
> "the both the"
>
> "Transporting SIP CLF files across the network pose" - change to  
> "...poses".
>
> "Other formats can be defined that include more headers (and the body)
>  from Section 8" change to:
> "Other formats can be defined that include more message fields  
> (header fields and/or body parts)
>  than those listed in Section 8"
>
> "as a SIP CLF log writers "
> change to
> "as SIP CLF log writers "
>
> John
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: sip-clf-bounces@ietf.org
>> [mailto:sip-clf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Spencer Dawkins
>> Sent: 27 January 2010 15:20
>> To: SIP-CLF Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: [sip-clf] WGLC: SIPCLF Problem
>> Statement(draft-gurbani-sipclf-problem-statement-01)
>>
>> Just as a wake-up call, we're about halfway through WGLC, and
>> I'm not seeing
>> evidence onlist that people are reading this draft and
>> agreeing that we
>> should adopt it (or even that we should not adopt it).
>>
>> I'm assuming that Cullen likes the current version, but his
>> request to adopt
>> was actually for the previous version of this draft. Other
>> than Cullen, the
>> only post I've seen was from Eric, who is one of the draft authors.
>>
>> Theo and I are looking for actual statements of support for
>> adopting drafts
>> as working group items - in this case, silence is NOT consent.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Spencer
>>
>>
>> > Just to let people know, Theo and I agree that this draft should be
>> > adopted as a working group draft. After a quick once-over,
>> I think it's
>> > solid enough to start WGLC now.
>> >
>> > WGLC will end on 2010/02/05, which gives nearly three weeks
>> for people to
>> > post and discuss comments on the mailing list.
>> >
>> > Once WGLC is completed, I will ask Vijay to post a
>> draft-ietf-sipclf 00
>> > version addressing WGLC comments. I hope to be able to
>> request publication
>> > for that version of the draft-ietf-sipclf version, so
>> please don't be shy
>> > about sending comments on the individual draft currently posted (at
>> >
>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-gurbani-sipclf-problem- 
>> statement-01.txt).
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Spencer, as co-chair
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sip-clf mailing list
>> sip-clf@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-clf
>> =
>
> _______________________________________________
> sip-clf mailing list
> sip-clf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-clf