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>; "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
- [sip-clf] WGLC: SIPCLF Problem Statement (draft-g… Spencer Dawkins
- Re: [sip-clf] WGLC: SIPCLF Problem Statement(draf… Spencer Dawkins
- Re: [sip-clf] WGLC: SIPCLF Problem Statement(draf… Elwell, John
- Re: [sip-clf] WGLC: SIPCLF ProblemStatement(draft… Spencer Dawkins
- Re: [sip-clf] WGLC: SIPCLF ProblemStatement(draft… Eric Burger
- Re: [sip-clf] WGLC: SIPCLF Problem Statement(draf… David Harrington
- Re: [sip-clf] WGLC: SIPCLF Problem Statement(draf… Spencer Dawkins
- Re: [sip-clf] WGLC: SIPCLF Problem Statement(draf… Vijay K. Gurbani
- Re: [sip-clf] WGLC: SIPCLF ProblemStatement(draft… Spencer Dawkins
- Re: [sip-clf] WGLC: SIPCLF ProblemStatement(draft… Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- Re: [sip-clf] WGLC: SIPCLF ProblemStatement(draft… David Harrington
- Re: [sip-clf] WGLC: SIPCLF ProblemStatement(draft… Spencer Dawkins
- Re: [sip-clf] WGLC: SIPCLFProblemStatement(draft-… Rainer Gerhards
- [sip-clf] A primer on syslog. David Harrington
- Re: [sip-clf] A primer on syslog. Rainer Gerhards
- Re: [sip-clf] A primer on syslog. Spencer Dawkins
- Re: [sip-clf] A primer on syslog. Cullen Jennings
- [sip-clf] WGLC: SIPCLF Problem Statement (draft-g… Cullen Jennings
- Re: [sip-clf] WGLC: SIPCLF Problem Statement(draf… Rainer Gerhards
- Re: [sip-clf] A primer on syslog. Rainer Gerhards
- Re: [sip-clf] WGLC: SIPCLF Problem Statement(draf… Benoit Claise
- Re: [sip-clf] WGLC: SIPCLF Problem Statement (dra… Vijay K. Gurbani
- Re: [sip-clf] WGLC: SIPCLF Problem Statement (dra… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [sip-clf] WGLC: SIPCLF Problem Statement (dra… Vijay K. Gurbani