Re: [sip-clf] Changes for Problem Statement Doc

[Peter Musgrave <[e-mail]>]

On 2010-11-22, at 4:13 PM, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote:

> On 11/14/2010 04:42 AM, Peter Musgrave wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Issue: There was an issue about logging bodies. I see agreement that
>> this does not need to be mandatory. I would suggest it could be
>> incorporated into the log format in a TLV manner. Does anyone want to
>> see words in the problem statement about e,g. what TLV should be used
>> to log SDP?
(as individual)
I'd welcome other opinions here. I tend to think primarily in terms of sdp bodies. I also think this raises an issue in the ascii draft about how to represent a multi-line body in a format which tries to use a single text line. Some options are:
1. allow the line breaks to happen (and use the pointer block to indicate where the next message starts) 
  - this does make simple line based scripting harder  - so I do not favour it. 
2. Have a different EOL character
3. Make each sdp line it's own TLV (or have an list-like TLV entity)

These issues may recur in other body types (e.g. the XML docs which are bodies in INFOs and NOTIFYs). So any solution should bear that in mind. 

Opinions?

Peter Musgrave

> 
> - vijay
> -- 
> Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
> 1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA)
> Email: vkg@{alcatel-lucent.com,bell-labs.com,acm.org}
> Web:   http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/