Re: [sip-clf] IETF 76 Minutes posted

Actually Saverio's writing up a draft explaining why IPFIX is a good solution, with several folks agreeing to help him on it.  I think the plan is to get that submitted sometime in January.

His group also did submit a proposal called "SIPFIX" for using IPFIX for SIP previously, into the IPFIX WG, available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-huici-ipfix-sipfix-00

We debated that draft in IPFIX back in Stockholm, and it went beyond what we're looking for in SIP-CLF, but it's another useful data point.

To create a draft on using IPFIX for a SIP-CLF, though, doesn't require a draft detailing the file format - the "file format" is already defined: it would be based on RFC 5655.  All we need is to decide on the information element fields.

-hadriel

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sip-clf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sip-clf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Spencer Dawkins
> Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 2:56 PM
> To: SIP-CLF Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [sip-clf] IETF 76 Minutes posted
> 
> Just following up...
> 
> > Please let me know (quickly!) about any changes to
> > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09nov/minutes/sipclf.htm that Theo and I
> > need to make.
> 
> OK, Theo and I haven't seen any requests for changes to the minutes, so
> let's go from where we said we were after Hiroshima.
> 
> For the problem statement - we said we would look at the next version of
> draft-gurbani-sipclf-problem-statement for adoption. Vijay, do you have an
> ETA for this?
> 
> For the file format drafts - I know that Hadriel is working on a proposal
> on
> the IPFIX side. We also had proposals for a text format and an indexed-
> text
> format. My understanding from Hiroshima was that these proposals were
> likely
> to be combined - Vijay and Adam, can you confirm or deny?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Spencer, as co-chair
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sip-clf mailing list
> sip-clf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-clf