IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Spud] [Int-area] New Version Notification for draft-welzl-icmp-text-middleboxes-00.txt

Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> Thu, 02 July 2015 22:14 UTC

Return-Path: <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
X-Original-To: spud@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spud@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22B4B1A9114 for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Jul 2015 15:14:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wCINBC99n0v6 for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Jul 2015 15:14:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-out5.uio.no (mail-out5.uio.no [IPv6:2001:700:100:10::17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 155A91A90DD for <spud@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Jul 2015 15:14:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-mx2.uio.no ([129.240.10.30]) by mail-out5.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1ZAmk2-0006rt-Sx; Fri, 03 Jul 2015 00:13:58 +0200
Received: from [46.189.28.223] (helo=[10.25.10.70]) by mail-mx2.uio.no with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) user michawe (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1ZAmk2-0006Qn-J7; Fri, 03 Jul 2015 00:13:58 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\))
From: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
In-Reply-To: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D2432779493613FF2FF6@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 00:13:57 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3F296D63-AE5D-4B1A-ABA4-FBE7D2CA0479@ifi.uio.no>
References: <612B7EC6-8AF9-4FDB-879F-735213ACAB1A@ifi.uio.no> <F38C9351-7324-4099-8867-52987B4CAA3D@ifi.uio.no> <f30374cf53901345a21b972af3d87000.squirrel@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <1A563A0C-CCF5-4D97-935E-1509237BB357@ifi.uio.no> <33970202-61F0-4F9D-8B04-85B677AD381E@cisco.com> <D54A89ED-6BD4-410A-A230-934112368FF2@ifi.uio.no> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D2432779493613FF2FF6@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com>
To: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6)
X-UiO-SPF-Received:
X-UiO-Ratelimit-Test: rcpts/h 6 msgs/h 2 sum rcpts/h 7 sum msgs/h 3 total rcpts 30697 max rcpts/h 54 ratelimit 0
X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-5.0, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO)
X-UiO-Scanned: C1BD2AA0A9B7A9139C9C8C9D329D65553DBE1F5B
X-UiO-SPAM-Test: remote_host: 46.189.28.223 spam_score: -49 maxlevel 80 minaction 2 bait 0 mail/h: 2 total 15 max/h 5 blacklist 0 greylist 0 ratelimit 0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spud/4rIOmKkGH-IwcKENFXQZUnzbiqw>
Cc: "gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk" <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, "spud@ietf.org" <spud@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Spud] [Int-area] New Version Notification for draft-welzl-icmp-text-middleboxes-00.txt
X-BeenThere: spud@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Session Protocol Underneath Datagrams <spud.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spud>, <mailto:spud-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spud/>
List-Post: <mailto:spud@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spud-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spud>, <mailto:spud-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2015 22:14:04 -0000

> On 3. jul. 2015, at 00.02, Black, David <david.black@emc.com> wrote:
> 
>> But I wonder, why wouldn't ascii be computer-parsable? I can't imagine trying
>> to agree on a common "complaint format", so I guess ascii is as good as
>> anything... maybe then applications would begin to send messages in a certain
>> style? That style could develop... be defined elsewhere?  Anyway we could make
>> a start, differentiate between computer-parsable and human messages, and
>> require a certain base format to start with...  if others see value in that
>> too?
> 
> Pick your favorite log format - most log analysis tools out there have learned
> to extract information from all the "ususal suspects" as there are no really
> well-defined standards that can be relied upon.

Ah, sorry, I saw this one too late - it answers a question I ask in my previous answer  :(

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email