Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
I really like the idea of having a common log file format for third
party tools to rely on, but even if it's just for trend analysis and
Thanks, Hadriel; much appreciate your thoughts.
anomaly detection you'd need a much larger list of fields if this is
for anything but registrations. For example you'd need fields for
localhost, p-asserted-id/preferred-id, local-reject-reason,
diversion/hist-info, and probably some others I'm forgetting.
And that really gets to the problem with these things - everyone
wants something more/different. For example someone would probably
want to see the Via/Record-Route list too. And that's not even
covering the SDP side.
Do you think the particular set you defined is necessary and
sufficient? Or is this extensible somehow?
We have tried to apply Occam's razor to the problem set to derive
what we think are the minimal headers that allow one to
model SIP client/server state transitions and in the process
provide some useful information for trend analysis and such.
We do discuss the extensibility aspect; it is buried in
the last sentence of S4.1. Dale has argued for a more
structured approach to extensibility such that any
pre-existing CLF parsers will not choke on new fields
added an so on; the next revision will contain some
more discussion on this.
However, the set of fields described in the draft now are
considered immutable for the purpose of the "SIP CLF"
moniker.
Thanks,
- vijay
--
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA)
Email: vkg@{alcatel-lucent.com,bell-labs.com,acm.org}
Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/
_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use sip-implementors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for questions on current sip
Use sip@xxxxxxxx for new developments of core SIP
