IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sip-ops] [dispatch] SIP-CLF: Extensibility considerations (was Results on ASCII vs. binary representation)

Theo Zourzouvillys <theo@crazygreek.co.uk> Thu, 30 April 2009 22:03 UTC

Return-Path: <theo@crazygreek.co.uk>
X-Original-To: sip-ops@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sip-ops@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EA6A28C191; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:03:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.859
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.859 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.118, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 aUo-CptLO1px; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:02:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from chip3og50.obsmtp.com (chip3og50.obsmtp.com [64.18.14.165]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D074628C1BC; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:02:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from source ([209.85.220.158]) by chip3ob50.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKSfogK0xQjvo0U3X9mEbvaFSg6pajU4YQ@postini.com; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:03:24 PDT
Received: by fxm2 with SMTP id 2so2081359fxm.37 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:03:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.86.91.3 with SMTP id o3mr2309290fgb.46.1241129003190; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:03:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <49FA142E.7060607@alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <49FA0526.4010000@nostrum.com> <49FA142E.7060607@alcatel-lucent.com>
From: Theo Zourzouvillys <theo@crazygreek.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 23:03:03 +0100
Message-ID: <167dfb9b0904301503w737e1fednc6a5213c54b02a9a@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@alcatel-lucent.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "sip-ops@ietf.org" <sip-ops@ietf.org>, "dispatch@ietf.org" <dispatch@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sip-ops] [dispatch] SIP-CLF: Extensibility considerations (was Results on ASCII vs. binary representation)
X-BeenThere: sip-ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Operations <sip-ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-ops>, <mailto:sip-ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip-ops>
List-Post: <mailto:sip-ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sip-ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-ops>, <mailto:sip-ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 22:03:00 -0000

On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 10:12 PM, Vijay K. Gurbani
<vkg@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:


> A binary CLF can always be produced from an ASCII one using
> offline transformations.

indeed, and a binary one can be just as easily converted to an ASCII
one - quicker in that direction, too :-)

> It is just that producing an ASCII
> CLF is low-impact since the messages that enter and exit
> a SIP server are ASCII to begin with.

this statement makes no sense at all in the context of this dicussion.

it's not like there is a 1:1 mapping between the memory chunk received
over a network card and the log line.  Be it ASCII or binary, it needs
to generate the record.  Both are as simple as each other, whatever
the scenario.

 ~ Theo

-- 
http://twitter.com/zourzouvillys
http://crazygreek.co.uk/

Sent from Bicester, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email