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

[Peter Musgrave <[e-mail]>]

I think that's a fair question. 

Can the advocates for both clarify? Do you mean:

1) vendor MUST implement A OR B
2) vendor MUST implement A, MAY do B
3) vendor MUST implement A AND B

Thanks, 

Peter Musgrave
(as co-chair)

On 2010-11-08, at 6:53 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote:

> 
> I'm sort of curios what do both means -  A proxy would write the logs twice in the two different formats? 
> 
> I suspect the pro/cons will show that these protocols are so close to the same that it would nuts to expend the energy do both. Perhaps  I will feel differently when I see the pro/cons. 
> 
> Here's the conversation I imagine having with the product marketing people that will decide if this gets prioritized high enough that we will actually implement it. Hey I need X people for Solution A and that will give customers the benefit of BLAH BLAH. Then I say, I also want on the Y people for Solution B and that will give customers the benefit of and repeat the same BLAH BLAH. At that point they will say, so if we did just one of these they would get all the benefit right? and I will say yes and that will be the end of it - they will either decide I am so stupid  to even propose this that they do neither or, if I am lucky,  they will pick one based on some complete misunderstanding. I'll get back we choose A because that solution better aligns with the RESTful architecture of cloud computing. 
> 
> 
> On Oct 28, 2010, at 11:55 AM, Peter Musgrave wrote:
> 
>> Hi, 
>> 
>> How do people feel about including one/both as an issue in the pros/cons discussion and the effort to solicit wider input from implementors?
>> 
>> I think then if both gets continued support we can present that as input in Prague and see where it goes. 
>> 
>> If the pro/con idea has support then I can start the discussion with a summary of what's been said thus far...
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> Peter Musgrave
>> (as co-chair)
>> 
>> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Saverio Niccolini <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> I am also in favor of specifying both, from a commercial perspective
>> this makes a lot of sense to give people in different markets what
>> they need.
>> 
>> Saverio
>> 
>> ============================================================
>> Dr. Saverio Niccolini
>> Manager, Real-Time Communications Group
>> NEC Laboratories Europe, Network Research Division     
>> Kurfuerstenanlage 36, D-69115 Heidelberg
>> Tel.     [phone]
>> NEC*NET Phone: [phone]
>> Fax:     [phone]
>> e-mail:  [e-mail]
>> ============================================================
>> NEC Europe Limited Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria
>> Road, London W3 6BL Registered in England 2832014
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>>> Behalf Of Hadriel Kaplan
>>> Sent: 27 October 2010 19:28
>>> To: Peter Musgrave
>>> Cc: List SIP-CLF Mailing
>>> Subject: Re: [sip-clf] Defining Pros and Cons of ASCII/IPFIX
>>> 
>>> 
>>> At a recent conference I asked a SIP monitoring vendor which format
>>> they thought we should specify, and surprisingly they said "do both".
>>> I asked them why, and they said there was a market for both ascii and
>>> binary formats - that monitoring systems would prefer binary ones, but
>>> that humans prefer ascii style ones; and that in the Enterprise market
>>> ascii was more dominant, while in the SP market binary was more
>>> dominant.  They said we wouldn't be able to choose just one in the IETF
>>> - because whichever we picked there'd still be a market for the other
>>> and that market would continue the status-quo of proprietary formats or
>>> settle on some de-facto one.
>>> 
>>> In thinking about this more I think I agree with them.  It'd be like us
>>> picking a Registrar database access protocol as well as the fields in
>>> it - we could specify SQL or DIAMETER, but in some markets it'll be one
>>> not the other no matter which one we choose. (or it'll be Active
>>> Directory, etc.)
>>> 
>>> -hadriel
>>> 
>>> On Oct 27, 2010, at 11:23 AM, Peter Musgrave wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> <ATT00001..c>
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> sip-clf mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-clf
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> sip-clf mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-clf
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sip-clf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-clf