Re: [sip-clf] Vendor extensions in draft-ietf-sipclf-format-01.txt
Gonzalo Salgueiro <gsalguei@cisco.com> Thu, 17 March 2011 17:26 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 8A8C43A69EE for <sip-clf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 10:26:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.276
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.276 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.978, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MANGLED_PENIS=2.3, 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 Q07IUbIuHvpf for <sip-clf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 10:26:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from av-tac-rtp.cisco.com (hen.cisco.com [64.102.19.198]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F4473A69EB for <sip-clf@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 10:26:44 -0700 (PDT)
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 p2HHS9Gi027378; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 13:28:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from dhcp-64-102-211-8.cisco.com (dhcp-64-102-211-8.cisco.com [64.102.211.8]) by rooster.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p2HHS4SB014891; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 13:28:06 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-76--46863264"
From: Gonzalo Salgueiro <gsalguei@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinLcJsFtNMp=egPJs_oSejiKMVYnUyYhttLwk4u@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 13:28:03 -0400
Message-Id: <60755913-FF54-4FBC-B999-17E8A958DF83@cisco.com>
References: <AANLkTi=4NSXhgqAg75EUkWt6K0jdg4Kgcy6B37vyTMit@mail.gmail.com> <75DCC5B8-DB67-42AD-A6F2-F972FCFD5AB3@cisco.com> <AANLkTi=4d+uJ5kVXjiT-8eUzO_-5xWw3Lr23vo5cHiLH@mail.gmail.com> <E7D0A5D2-07B2-40DD-A7C8-2DF9FFC35CB4@cisco.com> <Pine.GSO.4.63.1103150805050.29330@sjc-cde-011.cisco.com> <29F0AE59-74D6-45D7-9FD0-9F3F88BA259A@cisco.com> <AANLkTinLcJsFtNMp=egPJs_oSejiKMVYnUyYhttLwk4u@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anders Nygren <anders.nygren@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
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: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 17:26:46 -0000
I like this proposal as well. Despite the extra 5 bytes for vendor-specified optional fields, I think I prefer my proposal only from the point of view that it lines up nicely for both optional field types (and I think there is value in that). I could be easily swayed though... ;-) My ordered preference list is: 1. My proposal with PEN=0 for pre-defined optional fields 2. Chris Lonvick's proposal of using my proposal with a newly registered/reserved PEN for pre-defined optional fields 3. This proposal Regards, Gonzalo On Mar 17, 2011, at 1:04 PM, Anders Nygren wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Gonzalo Salgueiro <gsalguei@cisco.com> wrote: >> Chris - >> Thanks for the response. One very simple proposal I was offering that would >> clean up the convoluted syntax and avoid having to look ahead for the '@' is >> : >> - A single format for both pre-defined and vendor-specified optional fields >> based on TLV format >> - This single format is based on syslog-like tag@PEN is used is used as the >> "Tag" in TLV and where PEN=0 if it is not vendor-specified. >> This eliminates any need for a V bit to specify standard, vendor, >> experimental. Can you confirm that using the Reserved PEN=0 in this manner >> is valid? >> This seems to me a simple and elegant solution to this problem. Thoughts? >> Regards, >> Gonzalo >> > > Yes, that is fine with me. > Or to expand it and still keeping in line with syslog, (using a variants of > both formats in RFC5424 ch 6.3.2. SD-ID, and not just the second format), > and my previous proposals but avoids the vendor flag. > It is still easy to parse, (if byte 5="," it is a standard field and > if byte 5="@" > it is a vendor extension), and it saves 5 bytes per optional field. > And You don't have to worry about if PEN = 0 is allowed or not. > > In ABNF > > optional = standard | vendor > tag = 4HEXDIG > vendorID = 4HEXDIG > length = 4HEXDIG > standard = tag "," length "," value > vendor = tag "@" vendorID "," length "," value > > /Anders > >> >> On Mar 16, 2011, at 3:36 PM, Chris Lonvick wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Sorry for the delay in responding - busy with the day job. :-) >> >> I see where you're going with this. You could preclude the 0x2C character >> from the VendorID, and you could establish a fixed length for the VendorID, >> but even with that you're still going to have to do a search ahead to see if >> there is a 0x40 (@) in the field to determine if it's a vendor specific >> optional field, or a pre-defined optional field. As Anders says, not the >> best way to quickly process. >> >> I also saw Anders' proposal for inserting a new 1-byte field in the Optional >> Fields container. Using a full byte for two options just seems wasteful to >> me, but that's probably just me. :-) A good option for that is to tell the >> IANA that the field currently has two options ("s" and "v") but may be >> expanded at a later time. In SSH we usually carved out three options: >> standard, vendor, and experimental. For experimental, we said that if you >> come up with something new and want others to try it out (without having to >> use a single PEN [sort'a]) then have everone agree upon a value in the >> experimental range. See the last bullet in section 5.1 of RFC 4254 for an >> example. >> >> Regards, >> Chris >> >> On Tue, 15 Mar 2011, Gonzalo Salgueiro wrote: >> >> Anders - >> >> You are absolutely right, I did misunderstand your point the first time >> around. I thought you were saying '001' was the Vendor-ID, when in fact you >> were saying that "0001,FFFF,@<PEN>" is the Vendor-ID. Since the name in >> front of the '@' is only restricted in the following way: >> >> - MUST be printable US-ASCII strings >> >> - MUST NOT contain an at-sign ('@', ABNF %d64), an equal-sign ('=', ABNF >> %d61), a closing brace (']', ABNF %d93), a quote-character ('"', ABNF %d34), >> whitespace, or control characters. >> >> it indeed means your example is a valid Vendor-ID and could cause confusion. >> While this would be very unlikely to happen in practice [I can't imagine an >> implementer intentionally doing this], it is undesired. I think this fact >> makes your original proposal that much more elegant than the existing one. >> >> Regards, >> >> Gonzalo >> >> >> On Mar 15, 2011, at 10:38 AM, Anders Nygren wrote: >> >> 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