[sip-clf] Using the PEN

Chris Lonvick <clonvick@cisco.com> Mon, 28 March 2011 17:36 UTC

Return-Path: <clonvick@cisco.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 14E6328C122 for <sip-clf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 10:36:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.024
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.024 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.575, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, 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 6gQew0HueMaa for <sip-clf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 10:36:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F216F28C11C for <sip-clf@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 10:36:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=clonvick@cisco.com; l=891; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1301333894; x=1302543494; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:mime-version; bh=BNIpshbAmrb76f2P/6ZWbziZl5WH23COBlzWvXyaab8=; b=jm5b2y49yL3yVDahpQ3w66otWKLVKBdVfV65w33/WUCeDLknzVdZ89Rd OlJ10u8yzywcvq3jSPEWxLIchhGlHRrA55BjjCyG803TOye9yVer+1QAU IBFSg0UlUWoh2SUrohzmOAGHndtPtKf8kmLufzoeOS7//7jkfPxXaO355 A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApgIANvGkE2rRDoH/2dsb2JhbACYQgEBjQF3pzycDoJ8gm0EhTo
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.63,256,1299456000"; d="scan'208";a="419600276"
Received: from mtv-core-2.cisco.com ([171.68.58.7]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Mar 2011 17:38:13 +0000
Received: from sjc-cde-013.cisco.com (sjc-cde-013.cisco.com [171.69.29.170]) by mtv-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p2SHcDun009308 for <sip-clf@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:38:13 GMT
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 10:38:13 -0700
From: Chris Lonvick <clonvick@cisco.com>
To: sip-clf@ietf.org
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.63.1103261921470.11931@sjc-cde-013.cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Subject: [sip-clf] Using the PEN
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: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:36:38 -0000

Hi,

I ran the question of using PEN=0 and PEN=<vendor id> past a few people.

IANA did not have an opinion.

David Harrington, the author of RFC5612 thinks that it would be good.
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5612.txt

The best response I got was from Dan Romascanu who wrote:
>> PENs are using in various protocols and the usage of Enterprise Numbers
>> may (at least in theory) be different from protocol to protocol, so it
>> would be best if the respective protocol documents refer explicitly how
>> 'special' values like 0 are used. True, the convention that 0 is the
>> value reserved for IETF standards is widely used (for example to
>> identify standard notifications in SMI) but as SIP-CLF defines a
>> different DML I would suggest that adopting the convention is OK, and
>> mentioning it explicitly is best.

Bert Wijnen agreed with Dan.

Thanks,
Chris