Re: [sip-clf] minor nits on draft-ietf-sipclf-problem-statement-03

["Vijay K. Gurbani" <[e-mail]>]

On 08/03/2010 03:29 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
> Howdy, Currently draft-ietf-sipclf-problem-statement-03 has a section
> 8.2 which states in the first paragraph: Each SIP CLF record MUST
> contain the mandatory
> elements in the order shown below:
> Record size, Timestamp, Message type, Directionality, CSeq,
> R-URI, Destination:port:xport, Source:port:xport, To, From,
> Call-ID, Status, Server-Txn, Client-Txn
>
> Some of that is specific to an ascii format.  For example, the order
> of the fields is specific to an ascii format (any TLV or templated
> format wouldn't need such an ordering requirement).

Hadriel: Right; for the indexed-ASCII, the mandatory fields
are in a block following the timestamp (please see figure on
page 5 in [1].)  I would like the fields in this block to be in a
certain order, so that one can visually inspect CLF records
and expect to find the first three fields consisting of
CSeq number, method, and R-URI.

A TLV or templated form like ipfix does not need to maintain
order if it does not want to.

> The draft also has "Destination:port:xport" and "Source:port:xport",
> but those are really three separate fields each.

Is there a specific reason to break these out into individual
components?

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-salgueiro-sipclf-indexed-ascii-01

Thanks,

- 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/