[sip-clf] Defining Pros and Cons of ASCII/IPFIX

Peter Musgrave <peter.musgrave@magorcorp.com> Wed, 27 October 2010 15:21 UTC

Return-Path: <peter.musgrave@magorcorp.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 605003A692E for <sip-clf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 08:21:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.837
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.837 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.139, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 eGK7PPB5Fkje for <sip-clf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 08:21:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2E143A6930 for <sip-clf@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 08:21:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qwb7 with SMTP id 7so818027qwb.31 for <sip-clf@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 08:23:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.137.20 with SMTP id u20mr2542754qat.203.1288192993608; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 08:23:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.225.207 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 08:23:13 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:23:13 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTin3+_+-ARa29=o4V8-Pp-TS0Xc5S04CYhy0sT=r@mail.gmail.com>
From: Peter Musgrave <peter.musgrave@magorcorp.com>
To: List SIP-CLF Mailing <sip-clf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000e0cd10010c944b104939acd77"
Subject: [sip-clf] Defining Pros and Cons of ASCII/IPFIX
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: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 15:21:25 -0000

Hi all,

As co-chair I am looking for a way to make a determination about how to meet
the groups decision to move forward with just one format in a WG which has
good support for two formats.

In my (personal) opinion I think the objective is to develop something that
will be widely implemented. I would like to solicit input from a larger
audience - but first I think we need to frame the pros and cons.

I would like to suggest the following:

1) Use the list and the Beijing meeting to come to a consensus on the pros
and cons of each and the applications which may favour one format vs
another.

2) Place these pros/cons on the WG Wiki [I can act as editor]

3) Solicit input from SIP Implementors - referring them to the WG WIki
- use the Columbia sip-implementors, sipforum list and SIPT27

4) Review the feedback and try to come to a conclusion on the list (or
failing that, in Prague at IETF80)

I will be at SIPIT27 - so I can raise awareness of this discussion in that
community.

How do people feel about this approach?

I welcome any other/additional ways to resolve this issue.

Regards,

Peter Musgrave
co-chair