IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sip-clf] Request for Consensus: Adopt ASCII

Peter Musgrave <peter.musgrave@magorcorp.com> Thu, 02 December 2010 21:24 UTC

Return-Path: <peter.musgrave@magorcorp.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 E34153A697E for <sip-clf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 13:24:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.013
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.013 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.585, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 RKidDJk5CJc6 for <sip-clf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 13:24:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-gw0-f44.google.com (mail-gw0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA0933A6359 for <sip-clf@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 13:24:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by gwj17 with SMTP id 17so4907349gwj.31 for <sip-clf@ietf.org>; Thu, 02 Dec 2010 13:25:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.150.136.16 with SMTP id j16mr2233166ybd.442.1291325151630; Thu, 02 Dec 2010 13:25:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.105] ([204.237.32.134]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k16sm769430ybe.12.2010.12.02.13.25.49 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 02 Dec 2010 13:25:50 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-9--514664235"
From: Peter Musgrave <peter.musgrave@magorcorp.com>
In-Reply-To: <4CF80007.3050700@bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 16:25:48 -0500
Message-Id: <31DCAA91-4478-4D18-99AE-8A998CE7876C@magorcorp.com>
References: <D4134C23-AC3E-48E7-BFB4-1D51C2CA51EF@magorcorp.com> <06792DB6-BD48-42C9-B12F-639EA5E6E996@acmepacket.com> <6C54CABA-5BF0-4BA3-8845-1822023FF624@magorcorp.com> <4CDAAC6B.8090707@bell-labs.com> <5319F0AA-5CDE-42F0-BDC3-1A60FA18F2CF@voxeo.com> <745B2172-F6B4-4E3A-B92F-08904067354D@magorcorp.com> <0E35576E-3B0B-41A4-BB58-81207D71E983@cisco.com> <4CF80007.3050700@bell-labs.com>
To: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@bell-labs.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Cc: "sip-clf@ietf.org" <sip-clf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sip-clf] Request for Consensus: Adopt ASCII
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, 02 Dec 2010 21:24:37 -0000

On 2010-12-02, at 3:22 PM, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote:

>> 
>> - What format do we use to log a field that cannot be parsed?
> 
> I had suggested a "?" in an earlier email; see [2].
> 
>> - How do we log a missing field? Stick with - and come up with some
>> escape sequence for it? or do we log all fields which are
>> interpreted/derived not use "", but all fields which are the literal
>> string use " ?
> 
> Just stick a "?" in it as well.


Hi, 

I see a need for a distinction between a tag which is not present (because e.g. it's a new INVITE with no from tag, or a request and hence has no response code) - versus a message in which the tag or response code failed to parse. 

? for both does not allow this distinction. 

Peter

> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email