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

"Elwell, John" <> Wed, 13 January 2010 09:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F5A73A6ABF for <>; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 01:28:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.559
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.559 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.040, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ufztVct1dqJZ for <>; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 01:28:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A2D63A69F0 for <>; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 01:28:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from senmx12-mx ([] []) by with ESMTP id BT-MMP-519491; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:28:09 +0100
Received: from (unknown []) by senmx12-mx (Server) with ESMTP id 3DE1423F0278; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:28:09 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:28:09 +0100
From: "Elwell, John" <>
To: Cullen Jennings <>, SIP-CLF Mailing List <>
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: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
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-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Common Log File format discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: 
> [] 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