IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Sipping] Alternate CLF syntax proposal

"Dale Worley" <dworley@nortel.com> Fri, 10 April 2009 19:58 UTC

Return-Path: <dworley@nortel.com>
X-Original-To: sipping@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipping@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BFE23A6853 for <sipping@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Apr 2009 12:58:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.088, 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 mTwLjLq3JhKs for <sipping@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Apr 2009 12:58:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zrtps0kp.nortel.com (zrtps0kp.nortel.com [47.140.192.56]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 383443A680C for <sipping@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Apr 2009 12:58:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zrtphxs1.corp.nortel.com (casmtp.ca.nortel.com [47.140.202.46]) by zrtps0kp.nortel.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id n3AJxau08822; Fri, 10 Apr 2009 19:59:36 GMT
Received: from [47.16.90.165] ([47.16.90.165]) by zrtphxs1.corp.nortel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 10 Apr 2009 15:59:35 -0400
From: Dale Worley <dworley@nortel.com>
To: sipping WG <sipping@ietf.org>, "draft-gurbani-sipping-clf@tools.ietf.org" <draft-gurbani-sipping-clf@tools.ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <E6C2E8958BA59A4FB960963D475F7AC31503229BAE@mail>
References: <49CAE21C.5060309@nostrum.com> <c164605b0903260836p45a8bd8eg9ad50f670ef82302@mail.gmail.com> <167dfb9b0903290326t519e6df8naacdb396a259f8f2@mail.gmail.com> <49CFCD7B.5020304@iptel.org> <167dfb9b0903291950s17559a41s6a8ab01cee1e3650@mail.gmail.com> <E6C2E8958BA59A4FB960963D475F7AC31503229BAE@mail>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: Nortel Networks
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 15:59:34 -0400
Message-Id: <1239393574.3742.46.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.3 (2.12.3-5.fc8)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Apr 2009 19:59:35.0602 (UTC) FILETIME=[DF59C920:01C9BA16]
Subject: Re: [Sipping] Alternate CLF syntax proposal
X-BeenThere: sipping@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "SIPPING Working Group \(applications of SIP\)" <sipping.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping>, <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipping>
List-Post: <mailto:sipping@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping>, <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 19:58:32 -0000

On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 12:42 -0400, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
> That depends on what you think a "Common Log Format" would be useful
> for.  The premise was that it's for troubleshooting and analysis
> systems.  AFAICT, nothing short of the entire SIP message sequence,
> including contents, and even IP/UDP or TCP headers, would be
> sufficient for that in practice.

In our PBX, we've discovered that that is correct.  We do include the
entire SIP message, of course, though we restrict the IP/UDP/TCP
information to the IP address/port of the far end.

Dale

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email