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

"Scott Lawrence" <scott.lawrence@nortel.com> Fri, 01 May 2009 00:49 UTC

Return-Path: <scott.lawrence@nortel.com>
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 E59D93A6ACA; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:49:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.604
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.604 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.995, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 0N3dDXcPoFKe; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:49:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zrtps0kp.nortel.com (zrtps0kp.nortel.com [47.140.192.56]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D46963A67E6; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:49:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zrtphxs1.corp.nortel.com (zrtphxs1.corp.nortel.com [47.140.202.46]) by zrtps0kp.nortel.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id n410o9d26819; Fri, 1 May 2009 00:50:10 GMT
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([47.17.25.99]) by zrtphxs1.corp.nortel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 30 Apr 2009 20:49:54 -0400
From: "Scott Lawrence" <scott.lawrence@nortel.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <49FA23CD.9060000@nostrum.com>
References: <49FA0526.4010000@nostrum.com> <49FA142E.7060607@alcatel-lucent.com> <49FA23CD.9060000@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: Nortel Networks
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 20:49:53 -0400
Message-Id: <1241138993.3402.23.camel@scott>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.5 (2.24.5-1.fc10)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 May 2009 00:49:54.0919 (UTC) FILETIME=[BE559F70:01C9C9F6]
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: Fri, 01 May 2009 00:49:22 -0000

> Vijay K. Gurbani wrote:
> > The tagged format will add further latency to an ASCII format,
> > so I did not include it. In the best case, I am looking for an
> > ASCII format that is amenable to taking a line and using a
> > regexp to break it down to its constituent fields.

Adam Roach wrote:
> That's going to be pretty difficult with character escaping. You'll need 
> powerful regex ninja skills to deal with the text format once you figure 
> out how to handle things like spaces embedded within fields.

Not to mention escaped double quotes.

Having done a regex-based parser for just name-addr, I'd say don't go
there.