IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sip-clf] Strawman proposal to handle bodies

"Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@bell-labs.com> Thu, 20 January 2011 14:51 UTC

Return-Path: <vkg@bell-labs.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 5CB9A3A7115 for <sip-clf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jan 2011 06:51:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.397
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.397 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.202, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 ez7p73JsIJ2r for <sip-clf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jan 2011 06:51:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com (ihemail1.lucent.com [135.245.0.33]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 186083A6F6D for <sip-clf@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jan 2011 06:51:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from umail.lucent.com (h135-3-40-63.lucent.com [135.3.40.63]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id p0KErttG015453 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 20 Jan 2011 08:53:55 -0600 (CST)
Received: from shoonya.ih.lucent.com (Knoppix-135185238233.ih.lucent.com [135.185.238.233]) by umail.lucent.com (8.13.8/TPES) with ESMTP id p0KErtWF019836; Thu, 20 Jan 2011 08:53:55 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <4D384D16.5060601@bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 08:56:22 -0600
From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@bell-labs.com>
Organization: Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101209 Fedora/3.1.7-0.35.b3pre.fc14 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Elwell, John" <john.elwell@siemens-enterprise.com>
References: <4D371165.5030104@bell-labs.com> <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA05FC93F612@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <4D384780.3060104@bell-labs.com> <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA05FC93F806@MCHP058A.global-ad.net>
In-Reply-To: <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA05FC93F806@MCHP058A.global-ad.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.33
Cc: "sip-clf@ietf.org" <sip-clf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sip-clf] Strawman proposal to handle bodies
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, 20 Jan 2011 14:51:14 -0000

On 01/20/2011 08:40 AM, Elwell, John wrote:
> Vijay,
>
> I don't object strongly - just wanted to solicit other opinions.

John: OK, thanks.

Note that one small advantage of having the one tag is that it
makes it easy to handle multipart bodies since the MIME type
plus boundary parameter is saved in the CLF record.  With an enumerated
tag set, we'd need to reserve a special tag for multipart and
somehow save the boundary parameter in the CLF record.

If you can think of a reason why going with one tag may prove
problematic, please let me know.  As far as I can see it, I think
it should work.

Thanks,

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email