[sip-clf] Open issues for the SIP CLF representation draft

Gonzalo Salgueiro <gsalguei@cisco.com> Thu, 10 February 2011 06:53 UTC

Return-Path: <gsalguei@cisco.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 40EAC3A68A7 for <sip-clf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Feb 2011 22:53:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_ASCII0=1.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 Izbr+HsnxdBM for <sip-clf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Feb 2011 22:53:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from av-tac-rtp.cisco.com (hen.cisco.com [64.102.19.198]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE5283A68C8 for <sip-clf@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Feb 2011 22:52:42 -0800 (PST)
X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned
Received: from rooster.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 p1A6qknP019155 for <sip-clf@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 01:52:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from rtp-gsalguei-8714.cisco.com (rtp-gsalguei-8714.cisco.com [10.116.61.53]) by rooster.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p1A6qhdr003214 for <sip-clf@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 01:52:43 -0500 (EST)
From: Gonzalo Salgueiro <gsalguei@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-83--961500508"
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 01:52:42 -0500
Message-Id: <BF69FEC7-40B7-4B38-8533-D738C31697BB@cisco.com>
To: "sip-clf@ietf.org Mailing" <sip-clf@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Subject: [sip-clf] Open issues for the SIP CLF representation draft
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: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 06:53:10 -0000

Folks -

In preparation for the -00 draft of the WG implementation draft, I need to close on a few unresolved issues that we agreed during the Virtual Interim Meeting to take to the list for further discussion. Please provide timely feedback so we minimize the number of open issues to discuss in Prague.

1. Shall we use a TAB or a SPACE (or any LWS) as field delimiters?

Considerations and points raised:

- TABs don’t survive Telnet or web pages very well, especially when copy/pasting.
- spaces can appear inside fields (as can most other delimiters we choose)
- how do TAB and SPACE delimiters interact with shell tools (rep, cut, awk)

2. Do we need to update the syntax of the optionally logged fields from the current well known (though possibly more cryptic) TLV representation?

<mandatory fields>	01,07,foo.bar	02,0b,hello world      

to something more easily readable (like tag="value")?

<mandatory fields> 1="foo.bar" 2="hello world”


Considerations and points raised:

- some concern about adding quotes around values (since some fields will contain quotes)
- this issue exists for almost any delimiter
- essentially a matter of "taste"


Warm Regards,

--Gonzalo