Re: [sip-clf] New co-chair/IETF78/Moving Forward

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

On 05/29/2010 10:58 AM, Peter Musgrave wrote:
> I have been reading past threads and current docs (I will post
> as-individual comments in the next few days). There has been a lot of
> good discussion

Hello Peter:

> It seems that after a flurry of activity leading up to Anaheim - we
> have hit the "post meeting let-down".
>
> It seems to me that:
> 1) We need to continue with the problem statement [especially closing
> on the "what" or "semantics" to be logged]

Yes, I am working on that document.  I need to find the final
time to close this and send it to the list; it has been
exceedingly busy until now to do so.  Other tasks
kept on cropping up, but this should be out on the list
next week.

> 3) We need an individual draft to start the discussion on the non-IPFIX
> option. [Volunteers?]

There is already a non-IPFIX option, and in fact, the work
first started with such a non-IPFIX option.  The initial option was
to use an ASCII CLF file, but for various reasons that we have
debated on the WG list, an indexed-ASCII approach was deemed much
better.  The indexed-ASCII approach is a merger of [1] and [2],
which both Adam and I have agreed to move as a single draft.

> So item (3) above is a desire to get this "other option" out in the
> world so we can discuss it in parallel with IPFIX.

See [1] and [2]; a merged draft will be produced after I get
the problem-statement draft out, and well before the Maastricht
submission deadlines.

> Also, Rob Sparks had requested concrete examples of logs using the SIP
> torture tests as a source. Volunteers?

I will take some example flows from SIP torture tests and
include this in the merged indexed-ASCII draft, but note
that a concrete example of a SIP CLF entry is already provided
in both [1] and [2].

> Can I get an indication from people who are willing to do work on what
> they think is realistic for new milestones? Can we get everything in
> play for a substantial discussion at IETF78?

I can vouch for the problem statement and the indexed ASCII approach.

The problem statement will be out to the list by end of next week
(i.e., by Jun-4-2010).

Regarding the indexed-ASCII approach, a couple of people have
indicated privately that they are interested in working with me
on this.  I will ping them next week to start getting some
commitments between their time and my time to get a first
merged draft out by Jun-30-2010.

Thank you for helping out with the SIPCLF WG, Peter.

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gurbani-sipping-clf-01
[2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-roach-sipping-clf-syntax-01

Ciao,

- 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/