Re: [sip-clf] One possible Information model for SIP CLF

"Elwell, John" <john.elwell@siemens-enterprise.com> Wed, 13 January 2010 09:28 UTC

Return-Path: <john.elwell@siemens-enterprise.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 6F5A73A6ABF for <sip-clf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 01:28:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.559
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.559 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.040, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 ufztVct1dqJZ for <sip-clf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 01:28:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ms02.m0019.fra.mmp.de.bt.com (m0019.fra.mmp.de.bt.com [62.180.227.30]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A2D63A69F0 for <sip-clf@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 01:28:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from senmx12-mx ([62.134.46.10] [62.134.46.10]) by ms02.m0020.fra.mmp.de.bt.com with ESMTP id BT-MMP-519491; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:28:09 +0100
Received: from MCHP063A.global-ad.net (unknown [172.29.37.61]) by senmx12-mx (Server) with ESMTP id 3DE1423F0278; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:28:09 +0100 (CET)
Received: from MCHP058A.global-ad.net ([172.29.37.55]) by MCHP063A.global-ad.net ([172.29.37.61]) with mapi; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:28:09 +0100
From: "Elwell, John" <john.elwell@siemens-enterprise.com>
To: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>, SIP-CLF Mailing List <sip-clf@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:28:07 +0100
Thread-Topic: [sip-clf] One possible Information model for SIP CLF
Thread-Index: AcqT1balx8wW3PYxS6WC3lCOF2fpzgAW/lqA
Message-ID: <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA69F56EEA@MCHP058A.global-ad.net>
References: <1AE77C97-EA66-406E-8EC0-4FFA63DA5F74@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <1AE77C97-EA66-406E-8EC0-4FFA63DA5F74@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [sip-clf] One possible Information model for SIP CLF
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: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 09:28:14 -0000

Yes, why don't we just do it? This group seems to have stalled. I don't have a strong opinion on the information model, so why not take Cullen's suggestion as a starting point and try to get consensus (having a call if necessary)? SIP-CLF is a useful work item, but not one worth spending years trying to find the optimum solution.

John


> -----Original Message-----
> From: sip-clf-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:sip-clf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Cullen Jennings
> Sent: 12 January 2010 22:22
> To: SIP-CLF Mailing List
> Subject: [sip-clf] One possible Information model for SIP CLF
> 
> 
> David raises and excellent point that we are unclear about 
> our information model and that makes it harder for us to get 
> work done quickly. I encourage people to read RFC 3444.
> 
> I think there is a very clear and well define information 
> model for what we need in SIP CLF. 
> 
> For each SIP message that is logged, there is a Status-Line 
> or Request-Line, an ordered list of pairs of where each pair 
> has a header-name and a header-value, and finally there may 
> be zero or one message-bodies. We also have where the message 
> was coming from and going to from the transport layer as well 
> as a timestamp. These are defined in RFC 3261. Formal 
> language descriptions of one possible data model for them are 
> provided in section 25.1. If people feel the strong need to 
> have this information model in say UML, I suspect I could do 
> the UML for this in ASCII. 
> 
> This is it. 
> 
> As usual, I don't claim to have a good handle on where this 
> slides from being an IM to DM but it barely seems relevant 
> for getting the job done. Now of course we could slide the IM 
> differently, such as pulling out the SIP to and from tags as 
> elements in the information model. I don't really care how we 
> slice it apart but the key thing to me that doing so is 
> really easy and largely already defined. I think that on a 
> single 1 hour phone call we could probably come to consensus 
> on what the information model needed to be. 
> 
> I would strongly argue that what we don't need is an 
> extensible information model or a formal language schema for 
> describing and extensible data model. SIP 2.0 is not going to 
> be extended in a way that adds elements outside the above items. 
> 
> Keep it simple. You are trying to convince someone that 
> currently has an fprintf to replace the it with this so make it easy. 
> 
> 
> Cullen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sip-clf mailing list
> sip-clf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-clf
>