Subject: [sip-clf] New co-chair/IETF78/Moving Forward

From: Peter Musgrave <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 11:58:58 -0400

Hi all,

First, thanks to Spencer for his work with this group. He has stepped
down as the co-chair since he is now active in the IAB.

I will be joining Theo as the new co-chair of this group.

I have been reading past threads and current docs (I will post
as-individual comments in the next few days). There has been a lot of
good discussion

It seems that after a flurry of activity leading up to Anaheim - we
have hit the "post meeting let-down".

It seems to me that:
1) We need to continue with the problem statement [especially closing
on the "what" or "semantics" to be logged]
2) Discussion on IPFIX needs to continue.
3) We need an individual draft to start the discussion on the non-IPFIX
option. [Volunteers?]

and that these should be the basis for a discussion at IETF78.

Will we have quorum and people who can discuss these items in
Maastricht? Please let me know ASAP and I will request a meeting slot.

The minutes of IETF77 showed:
"Chair: Please hum for one format only or for two options? Strong
consensus in the room for working on both options."

So item (3) above is a desire to get this "other option" out in the
world so we can discuss it in parallel with IPFIX.

Also, Rob Sparks had requested concrete examples of logs using the SIP
torture tests as a source. Volunteers?

This WG was perhaps a bit optimistic in the initial milestones (which
currently call for problem statement to IESG in Jan 2010 and spec.
WGLC in Mar 2010.)

Can I get an indication from people who are willing to do work on what
they think is realistic for new milestones? Can we get everything in
play for a substantial discussion at IETF78?

Regards,

Peter Musgrave

---

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 14:29:24 -0500

> on the "what" or "semantics" to be logged]

Yes, I am working on that document.  I need to find the final
time to close this and send it to the list; it has been
exceedingly busy until now to do so.  Other tasks
kept on cropping up, but this should be out on the list
next week.

> 3) We need an individual draft to start the discussion on the non-IPFIX

There is already a non-IPFIX option, and in fact, the work
first started with such a non-IPFIX option.  The initial option was
to use an ASCII CLF file, but for various reasons that we have
debated on the WG list, an indexed-ASCII approach was deemed much
better.  The indexed-ASCII approach is a merger of [1] and [2],
which both Adam and I have agreed to move as a single draft.

> world so we can discuss it in parallel with IPFIX.

See [1] and [2]; a merged draft will be produced after I get
the problem-statement draft out, and well before the Maastricht
submission deadlines.

> torture tests as a source. Volunteers?

I will take some example flows from SIP torture tests and
include this in the merged indexed-ASCII draft, but note
that a concrete example of a SIP CLF entry is already provided
in both [1] and [2].

> play for a substantial discussion at IETF78?

I can vouch for the problem statement and the indexed ASCII approach.

The problem statement will be out to the list by end of next week
(i.e., by Jun-4-2010).

Regarding the indexed-ASCII approach, a couple of people have
indicated privately that they are interested in working with me
on this.  I will ping them next week to start getting some
commitments between their time and my time to get a first
merged draft out by Jun-30-2010.

Thank you for helping out with the SIPCLF WG, Peter.

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gurbani-sipping-clf-01
[2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-roach-sipping-clf-syntax-01

Ciao,

- 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/

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 09:16:17 +0200

Hi Peter,

> 2) Discussion on IPFIX needs to continue.
Yes, we have posted two new versions in last month.
That would be great to have some more feedback.

Regards, Benoit.
> _______________________________________________
> sip-clf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-clf
>