Subject: [sip-clf] PubRequest: draft-ietf-sipclf-format-09

From: Peter Musgrave <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 09:34:53 -0500

draft-ietf-sipclf-format-09

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Proposed Standard.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

The Session Initiation Protocol does not have a common log format, and as a result, each server supports a distinct log format that makes it unnecessarily complex to produce tools to do trend analysis and security detection.  This document describes a text based format based on the data model defined in the companion document sipclf-problem-statement. This format uses an indexed text approach to facilitate rapid searching of the log contents while retaining the advantages of a generic text search and filtering tools. 

Working Group Summary:

The discussion of indexed-ascii specifically did not result in any contentious issues in the WG discussion. More generally the choice of indexed ascii was more difficult for the WG. That process is described in the write-up for sipclf-problem-statement.

Document Quality:

There were sample implementations of the indexed ascii format written by Peter Musgrave and placed on the sipclf Wiki page. 

            Additional information from Vijay Gurbani:

At least three implementations are known, although none deployed as far
as I can tell.

One was being implemented by Anders Nygren, as posted on the list [1].
ALU has an early implementation, but it is conditionally compiled into
the code.  Illinois Institute of Technology did an implementation based
on Asterix codebase, but I do not think the students gave it back to
Asterix.

[1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip-clf/current/msg00435.html

Personnel:

Peter Musgrave is the shepherd.

Robert Sparks is the responsible AD.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

This document has been read fully by the shepherd. Nits were checked. 

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

No concerns.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

None.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

The WG understands this document. As described in the write-up for sip-clf-problem-statement there were two competing strategies. This document describes the strategy that was adopted. Once discussion focused on the specifics of HOW to log SIP in a text format the work group understood the objective and worked towards it. 

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

Yes. There is one error (a normative reference to the problem statement). This reference will be correct once the AD changes the status of the problem statement to proposed standard.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

There are reference to a parallel document (sipclf-problem-statement). These need to move in parallel to avoid issues with downward normative references. 

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

This document defines two new registries. The new registries are:

IANA has created a registry of Version values entitled "SIP CLF
   Version Values".
IANA has created a
   registry of SIP CLF Transport Flag values entitled "SIP CLF Transport
   Flag Values".
It is the opinion of the shepherd that these are reasonable names. 

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

The two new registries are "SIPCLF Version values" and "SIP CLF Transport Flags". 

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

N/A