Re: [sip-clf] Vendor extensions in draft-ietf-sipclf-format-01.txt
Anders Nygren <anders.nygren@gmail.com> Tue, 15 March 2011 14:37 UTC
Return-Path: <anders.nygren@gmail.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 8D3C93A6D85 for <sip-clf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 07:37:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 O14am3sse+HI for <sip-clf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 07:37:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ew0-f44.google.com (mail-ew0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0755B3A6D82 for <sip-clf@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 07:37:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ewy19 with SMTP id 19so235981ewy.31 for <sip-clf@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 07:38:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=LzycJU/zTsG6Uh2W+byxKepzaKUunQnR91DE41asHlM=; b=K7i6CIRjRb86E+mrxSswxgRwVkuANEDdkqa7QgOOuNBm4AtjbTCZ0bZCYP2XxFKEtJ aiQ1H8tua2Fafm5H7MZ+zWTkeyGgKWm/Y+QVs7RgxoB36g4TQyZ4dWx1HK7hcinRIjLT eriLk5xJUH+fmITsySLw1NMc+grhS8vLNkuAo=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=xFjvhU+Qr9B30jsmvIFFmovMDs8A9pei3kccAXbyMHDn7P7rQgtDoeVxCGO2z2p4jP IBibQWDhfTKl3UHBxfS9e9V4zApf//NZBtDCioAns1AFpXyT04A1Kahe2fIXLVvZOpHb CnYpHzv0xY0abtJDtA/m06clMruKpVvgJ/wY0=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.221.92 with SMTP id q70mr11761725wep.107.1300199924174; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 07:38:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.25.17 with HTTP; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 07:38:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <75DCC5B8-DB67-42AD-A6F2-F972FCFD5AB3@cisco.com>
References: <AANLkTi=4NSXhgqAg75EUkWt6K0jdg4Kgcy6B37vyTMit@mail.gmail.com> <75DCC5B8-DB67-42AD-A6F2-F972FCFD5AB3@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 08:38:44 -0600
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=4d+uJ5kVXjiT-8eUzO_-5xWw3Lr23vo5cHiLH@mail.gmail.com>
From: Anders Nygren <anders.nygren@gmail.com>
To: Gonzalo Salgueiro <gsalguei@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "sip-clf@ietf.org Mailing" <sip-clf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sip-clf] Vendor extensions in draft-ietf-sipclf-format-01.txt
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: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 14:37:22 -0000
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 12:19 AM, Gonzalo Salgueiro <gsalguei@cisco.com> wrote: > Thanks for raising your concerns Anders. > As you know, this draft was just published today and its principal intent > was to formulate an initial solution for SIP CLF extensibility. > A little history: > The current proposal for Vendor-specific extensions using a Syslog-like > approach (i.e. name@<private enterprise number>) was something proposed over > email and decided at the last SIPCLF Interim meeting in January. So this > really is a first pass at implementing vendor-specificied optional fields. > That said, I'll comment inline to your points > > On Mar 14, 2011, at 10:53 PM, Anders Nygren wrote: > > Hi > I must say that I really dislike the proposed format for vendor specific > fields. > Having a variable length "tag" before the length field means that it > is necessary > to scan the tag looking for the ',' just to find the length field. > > You make a valid point. I'd like others to weigh in here and comment on > whether they think this is a serious performance limitation. I'll propose > this as a discussion point for the upcoming meeting in Prague. The reason > for the variable length tag is that it is based on the SD-ID format from > Syslog, which is variable in length (i.e. the unrestricted name before the > '@'). I think using a Vendor-ID based on a PEN is common sense, so I'd like > to stick with that if possible. We could decide on a fixed length name (or > number to parallel the tag from the Pre-Defined Optional Fields) followed by > four byte PEN. > > There is no simple way to tell he difference between a sip-clf > optional field and > a vendor specific optional field. So it will always be necessary to scan the > record looking for the ',' . > Actually looking at RFC 5424 ch 4.3.2 it looks like this would be a legal > ID, "0001,FFFF,@12345" which would be difficult to differentiate from a > standard optional field without a lot of work. > > Remember that that this draft restricts the scope of the syntax to the 2nd > format definition of SD-IDs in RFC5424. Thus, the above wouldn't be a legal > vendor-specified optional field since "0001" doesn't contain an '@', which > is mandatory for a Vendor-ID as defined in the draft. So there should be no > confusion there as the Vendor-ID from the vendor-specified optional fields > and the Tag from the pre-defined optional fields can never be the same. > I think that You did not understand the point I was trying to make. As I understand the specification in the 2nd format definition of SD-IDs in RFC5424, comma "," is allowed in the name part. So "0001,FFFF,@<Vendor-ID>" would be a legal tag, that would be very difficult to differentiate from a standard optional field with tag="0001", length="FFFF" and a value starting with "@<Vendor-ID>" > I think a better way to do this would be similar to diameter RFC3588, ch > 4.1. > Then we could have just one format for standard optional fields and vendor > specific fields > > byte 1 0x09 > byte 2-5 Tag (Hex) > byte 6-9 VendorId > byte 10 0x2C > byte 11-14 Length (Hex) > byte 15 0x2C > byte 16-.. Value (variable length) > > Where VendorId is the IANA assigned "SMI Network Management Private > Enterprise Codes" [ASSIGNNO] value. > VendorId=0 is used a for the standard optional fields defined in SIP-CLF. > > I know that PEN = 0 is a Reserved value and if it is confirmed that it can > be used in this way (as apparently DIAMETER did), then I think this proposal > is very reasonable. This unifies both optional field types into a single > seamless representation. I'll let others, like Chris Lonvick, more > knowledgeable than I weigh in on this as well to confirm my thoughts. > Regards, > Gonzalo > > /Anders > _______________________________________________ > sip-clf mailing list > sip-clf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-clf > >
- Re: [sip-clf] Vendor extensions in draft-ietf-sip… Anders Nygren
- [sip-clf] Vendor extensions in draft-ietf-sipclf-… Anders Nygren
- Re: [sip-clf] Vendor extensions in draft-ietf-sip… Gonzalo Salgueiro
- Re: [sip-clf] Vendor extensions in draft-ietf-sip… Gonzalo Salgueiro
- Re: [sip-clf] Vendor extensions in draft-ietf-sip… Anders Nygren
- Re: [sip-clf] Vendor extensions in draft-ietf-sip… Gonzalo Salgueiro
- Re: [sip-clf] Vendor extensions in draft-ietf-sip… Anders Nygren
- Re: [sip-clf] Vendor extensions in draft-ietf-sip… Gonzalo Salgueiro
- Re: [sip-clf] Vendor extensions in draft-ietf-sip… Chris Lonvick
- Re: [sip-clf] Vendor extensions in draft-ietf-sip… Anders Nygren
- Re: [sip-clf] Vendor extensions in draft-ietf-sip… Gonzalo Salgueiro
- Re: [sip-clf] Vendor extensions in draft-ietf-sip… Chris Lonvick
- Re: [sip-clf] Vendor extensions in draft-ietf-sip… Anders Nygren
- Re: [sip-clf] Vendor extensions in draft-ietf-sip… Gonzalo Salgueiro
- Re: [sip-clf] Vendor extensions in draft-ietf-sip… Anders Nygren
- Re: [sip-clf] Vendor extensions in draft-ietf-sip… Chris Lonvick