Dan: Thank you for your review of the SIP CLF problem statement
draft. I appreciate your time and resulting comments.
Please see inline on resolution of your comments. I will be releasing
an updated version of the draft shortly with the resolutions contained
herein.
On 12/17/2012 10:02 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
Hi,
I believe that this is a good document and I support its approval.
I do have a number of issues which I suggest to take into consideration before approval and publication:
1. In Section 4:
The SIP CLF is amenable to easy parsing and lends itself well to
creating other innovative tools.
I am not sure what this sentence really says. What does 'easy parsing' mean? The previous paragraph referred to 'quick parsing (i.e., well-delimited fields)' - quick parsing is a relative notion but at least there was an example. Here, I do not know.
What does 'other innovative tools' means escapes me totally. Why 'other'? 'other' than what? And what 'innovative tools' means?
I have changed the text to address your comment. The change is as
follows:
OLD:
The SIP CLF is amenable to easy parsing and lends itself well to
creating other innovative tools.
NEW:
Due to the structure imposed by delimited fields, the SIP CLF is
amenable to easy parsing and lends itself well to creating other
innovative tools such as logfile parsers and trend analytic engines.
2. In Section 11
SIP CLF log files will take up substantive amount of disk space
depending on traffic volume at a processing entity and the amount of
information being logged. As such, any organization using SIP CLF
should establish operational procedures for file rollovers as
appropriate to the needs of the organization.
Procedures for file rollovers is not enough - actually there need to be in place procedures for periodic retrieval of logs before rollover.
Added the phrase "periodic retrieval of logs before rollover" in S11.
3. [RFC3261] needs to be a Normative Reference. All this document speaks about logs for SIP, refers to SIP entities, messages, fields in the SIP messages - on short it cannot be understood and the SIP-CLF cannot be implemented without a good reading and understanding of [RFC3261].
I think it is a reasonable position that understanding rfc3261 is a pre-
requsite for implementing SIP CLF. I have made rfc3261 normative as you
suggest.
Once again, thank you for your time and review of this work.
- vijay
--
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / vijay.gurbani@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/