Re: [sip-clf] Changes to proposed charter based on discussion in Stockholm

Vijay Gurbani <> Fri, 21 August 2009 00:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE0C33A6C74 for <>; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 17:38:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.046
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.046 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.317, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_MLH_Stock1=0.87]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BPA7F03+Sjma for <>; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 17:38:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3CE13A6A4D for <>; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 17:38:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id n7L0cpWp010733 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 20 Aug 2009 19:38:51 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/TPES) with ESMTP id n7L0cnAM003902; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 19:38:50 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 19:39:42 -0500
From: Vijay Gurbani <>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (X11/20090105)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Robert Sparks <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on
Cc:, theo zourzouvillys <>
Subject: Re: [sip-clf] Changes to proposed charter based on discussion in Stockholm
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: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 00:38:47 -0000

Robert Sparks wrote:
> Thanks for looking at this Vijay.
> Your suggestion negates exactly what the text was trying to say though.

Robert: Then I am confused.  More inline.

> The word "diverse" was there on purpose. I've heard an expectation from
> the conversation so far to be able to merge records from several different
> elements on the path of a request (multiple proxies, and potentially both
> (even several) endpoints, and do something sensible, like answer "what
> happened with this request".

Sure, but that is what the *second* bullet item is covering, is it not?

   * the need to correlate messages from multiple elements
     related to a given request (that may fork) or a
     given dialog.

This is what allows folks to correlate a request across multiple
elements using something akin to Hadriel's session-id draft.

The first bullet covers cases where a proxy may want to create
a search tree of forked requests, or where a proxy's administrator
wants to do some trend analysis on a the proxy's log file.  The
first bullet also covers the case where a user wants to do some
analysis on his or her UA's local log file.


- vijay
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA)
Email: vkg@{,,}