From gsalguei@cisco.com Wed Feb 9 22:53:10 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sip-clf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: sip-clf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40EAC3A68A7 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2011 22:53:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_ASCII0=1.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Izbr+HsnxdBM for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2011 22:53:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from av-tac-rtp.cisco.com (hen.cisco.com [64.102.19.198]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE5283A68C8 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2011 22:52:42 -0800 (PST) X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned Received: from rooster.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-rtp.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p1A6qknP019155 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 01:52:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtp-gsalguei-8714.cisco.com (rtp-gsalguei-8714.cisco.com [10.116.61.53]) by rooster.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p1A6qhdr003214 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 01:52:43 -0500 (EST) From: Gonzalo Salgueiro Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-83--961500508 Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 01:52:42 -0500 Message-Id: To: "sip-clf@ietf.org Mailing" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Subject: [sip-clf] Open issues for the SIP CLF representation draft X-BeenThere: sip-clf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: SIP Common Log File format discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 06:53:10 -0000 --Apple-Mail-83--961500508 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Folks - In preparation for the -00 draft of the WG implementation draft, I need = to close on a few unresolved issues that we agreed during the Virtual = Interim Meeting to take to the list for further discussion. Please = provide timely feedback so we minimize the number of open issues to = discuss in Prague. 1. Shall we use a TAB or a SPACE (or any LWS) as field delimiters? =00 Considerations and points raised: - TABs don=92t survive Telnet or web pages very well, especially when = copy/pasting. - spaces can appear inside fields (as can most other delimiters we = choose) - how do TAB and SPACE delimiters interact with shell tools (rep, cut, = awk) 2. Do we need to update the syntax of the optionally logged fields from = the current well known (though possibly more cryptic) TLV = representation? 01,07,foo.bar 02,0b,hello world =20 to something more easily readable (like tag=3D"value")? 1=3D"foo.bar" 2=3D"hello world=94 =00 Considerations and points raised: - some concern about adding quotes around values (since some fields will = contain quotes) - this issue exists for almost any delimiter - essentially a matter of "taste" Warm Regards, --Gonzalo --Apple-Mail-83--961500508 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Folks = -

In = preparation for the -00 draft of the WG implementation draft, I need to = close on a few unresolved issues that we agreed during the Virtual = Interim Meeting to take to the list for further discussion. Please = provide timely feedback so we minimize the number of open issues to = discuss in Prague.
1. Shall we use a TAB or = a SPACE (or any LWS) as field delimiters?
=00

- = TABs don=92t survive Telnet or web pages very well, especially when = copy/pasting.
- = spaces can appear inside fields (as can most other delimiters we = choose)
- how do TAB and SPACE = delimiters interact with shell tools (rep, cut, awk)

2. Do we need to update the = syntax of the optionally logged fields from the current well known = (though possibly more cryptic) TLV representation?

<mandatory fields> = 01,07,foo.bar 02,0b,hello world     =  

to something more easily = readable (like tag=3D"value")?
<mandatory fields> = 1=3D"foo.bar" 2=3D"hello world=94
=00
Considerations and = points raised:
- some concern about = adding quotes around values (since some fields will contain = quotes)
- this issue exists for = almost any delimiter
- = essentially a matter of "taste"

Warm = Regards,

--Gonzalo

= --Apple-Mail-83--961500508-- From peter.musgrave@magorcorp.com Sun Feb 13 05:07:25 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sip-clf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: sip-clf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43BE33A6981 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2011 05:07:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L0OC9L4q-oij for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2011 05:07:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB3AD3A69D6 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2011 05:07:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by iym1 with SMTP id 1so4231729iym.31 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2011 05:07:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.13.201 with SMTP id d9mr2018999iba.124.1297602464050; Sun, 13 Feb 2011 05:07:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([204.237.32.134]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u9sm1631591ibe.20.2011.02.13.05.07.41 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 13 Feb 2011 05:07:42 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-2--679803301 From: Peter Musgrave In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 08:07:40 -0500 Message-Id: References: To: Gonzalo Salgueiro X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Cc: "sip-clf@ietf.org Mailing" Subject: Re: [sip-clf] Open issues for the SIP CLF representation draft X-BeenThere: sip-clf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: SIP Common Log File format discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 13:07:25 -0000 --Apple-Mail-2--679803301 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Hi,=20 1. I guess I favour tabs (since I expect a lot of spaces in fields) = despite their drawbacks in e.g. Telnet.=20 2. I would avoid the equals and quotes since this introduces two = elements which could be in the data whereas the TLV introduces only one = (comma) Peter Musgrave (as individual) On 2011-02-10, at 1:52 AM, Gonzalo Salgueiro wrote: > Folks - >=20 > In preparation for the -00 draft of the WG implementation draft, I = need to close on a few unresolved issues that we agreed during the = Virtual Interim Meeting to take to the list for further discussion. = Please provide timely feedback so we minimize the number of open issues = to discuss in Prague. >=20 > 1. Shall we use a TAB or a SPACE (or any LWS) as field delimiters? > Considerations and points raised: >=20 > - TABs don=92t survive Telnet or web pages very well, especially when = copy/pasting. > - spaces can appear inside fields (as can most other delimiters we = choose) > - how do TAB and SPACE delimiters interact with shell tools (rep, cut, = awk) >=20 > 2. Do we need to update the syntax of the optionally logged fields = from the current well known (though possibly more cryptic) TLV = representation? >=20 > 01,07,foo.bar 02,0b,hello world =20 >=20 > to something more easily readable (like tag=3D"value")? >=20 > 1=3D"foo.bar" 2=3D"hello world=94 >=20 > Considerations and points raised: >=20 > - some concern about adding quotes around values (since some fields = will contain quotes) > - this issue exists for almost any delimiter > - essentially a matter of "taste" >=20 >=20 > Warm Regards, >=20 > --Gonzalo >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > sip-clf mailing list > sip-clf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-clf --Apple-Mail-2--679803301 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Folks = -

In = preparation for the -00 draft of the WG implementation draft, I need to = close on a few unresolved issues that we agreed during the Virtual = Interim Meeting to take to the list for further discussion. Please = provide timely feedback so we minimize the number of open issues to = discuss in Prague.
1. Shall we use a TAB or = a SPACE (or any LWS) as field delimiters?

- = TABs don=92t survive Telnet or web pages very well, especially when = copy/pasting.
- = spaces can appear inside fields (as can most other delimiters we = choose)
- how do TAB and SPACE = delimiters interact with shell tools (rep, cut, awk)

2. Do we need to update the = syntax of the optionally logged fields from the current well known = (though possibly more cryptic) TLV representation?

<mandatory fields> = 01,07,foo.bar 02,0b,hello world     =  

to something more easily = readable (like tag=3D"value")?
<mandatory fields> = 1=3D"foo.bar" 2=3D"hello world=94
Considerations and = points raised:
- some concern about = adding quotes around values (since some fields will contain = quotes)
- this issue exists for = almost any delimiter
- = essentially a matter of "taste"

Warm = Regards,

--Gonzalo

_______________________________________________
sip-clf = mailing list
sip-clf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.= org/mailman/listinfo/sip-clf

= --Apple-Mail-2--679803301-- From jeroen@unfix.org Wed Feb 16 04:53:58 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sip-clf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: sip-clf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D29E3A6CAA; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 04:53:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.297 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.297 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.302, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xjbNwU+UPS5a; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 04:53:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from abaddon.unfix.org (abaddon.unfix.org [62.220.146.203]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 896D13A6CC6; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 04:53:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from [IPv6:2001:41e0:ff42:99:222:cfff:fe31:ce41] (spaghetti.ch.unfix.org [IPv6:2001:41e0:ff42:99:222:cfff:fe31:ce41]) (using SSLv3 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jeroen) by abaddon.unfix.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BEAC621778; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 13:53:52 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4D5BC8F8.70008@unfix.org> Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 13:54:16 +0100 From: Jeroen Massar Organization: Unfix User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rainer Gerhards References: <4D5A60C8.3090000@unfix.org><93ED0A84F9A1D74FA65021D940AA588405446C41F9@IMCMBX3.MITRE.ORG> <4D5BA85B.7040007@unfix.org> <9B6E2A8877C38245BFB15CC491A11DA71DDC71@GRFEXC.intern.adiscon.com> <4D5BAD69.2060608@unfix.org> <9B6E2A8877C38245BFB15CC491A11DA71DDC72@GRFEXC.intern.adiscon.com> In-Reply-To: <9B6E2A8877C38245BFB15CC491A11DA71DDC72@GRFEXC.intern.adiscon.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 05:23:38 -0800 Cc: cee@mitre.org, syslog@ietf.org, "Heinbockel, Bill" , sip-clf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [sip-clf] [Syslog] draft-cloud-log-00 / CEE - why not IPFIX? X-BeenThere: sip-clf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: SIP Common Log File format discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 12:53:58 -0000 On 2011-02-16 12:34, Rainer Gerhards wrote: [..] > The question is if such an effort must be bound restricted to a single > protocol. My PoV is that this is counter-productive. I might be missing the parsing here, but can you explain what part is counter-productive to have a single protocol and having to write only a single parser versus having a lot of different protocols who require parsers which can resolve ambiguity? > You definitely have a point in that IPFIX may be superior than syslog in many > regards. I do not intend to argue against this. But often a simpler solution > is able to draw more attention, and thus deployments, than a (potentially or > actually) technical superior one (shouldn't we all use the OSI stack by now, > just as one example...). I wonder what the "E" in IETF stands for if I see the above statement. Why not simply use CSV or hey just pack it in XML! :) Please note that IPFIX has gathered quite some attention already. As for the OSI stack argument, the world is not ready for IPv6 either. I like to also quote: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip-clf/current/msg00430.html 8<----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Shall we use a TAB or a SPACE (or any LWS) as field delimiters? Considerations and points raised: - TABs don’t survive Telnet or web pages very well, especially when copy/pasting. - spaces can appear inside fields (as can most other delimiters we choose) - how do TAB and SPACE delimiters interact with shell tools (rep, cut, awk) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------->8 The moment you have to worry about a delimiter, you have big problems.... that is why char format is not a good idea. Yes, you can use all the standard unix command tools to process them, but are you really going to do this on the big scale? I certainly hope not. The same with Apache logs, very useful to have to parse the IP address again to get the information you want. Especially with IPv6 where the address can have quite a number of formats based on how the address is represented, not even going talking about the point. Oh and those unix tools, they do not support UTF-8 in a lot of cases, thus they are suddenly quite useless. > I don't think it is useful to include IPFIX in syslog. But it may be an > option that IPFIX makes syslog obsolete. I think you should take that later > route. If there is going to be new effort for syslog, is that then not the route it should be taking? Structured data is so much more useful than unstructured data, and that is the big problem that > But as I said -- I do not intend to spawn another iteration of this lengthy > discussion. It has occurred sooo often in the past years. Is there a summary of this discussion with a clear listing of pro/cons? Would be good to have that in a draft, is there one? If there isn't please write one with those arguments so that it can referred to instead of stating 'we did this before, EOD'... Greets, Jeroen From gsalguei@cisco.com Sun Feb 27 13:02:13 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sip-clf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: sip-clf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53A093A6A00 for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:02:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.223 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.223 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.375, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Prp7MFZcTqre for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:02:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from av-tac-rtp.cisco.com (hen.cisco.com [64.102.19.198]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 193563A68BD for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:02:12 -0800 (PST) X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned Received: from rooster.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-rtp.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p1RL37Io013182; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:03:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtp-gsalguei-8714.cisco.com (rtp-gsalguei-8714.cisco.com [10.116.61.53]) by rooster.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p1RL331t011410; Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:03:03 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-228-558319230 From: Gonzalo Salgueiro In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:03:02 -0500 Message-Id: <3010A1D3-07B4-4EA0-8293-D35B04950014@cisco.com> References: To: "sip-clf@ietf.org Mailing" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Cc: Saverio Niccolini , Hadriel Kaplan Subject: Re: [sip-clf] Open issues for the SIP CLF representation draft X-BeenThere: sip-clf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: SIP Common Log File format discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 21:02:13 -0000 --Apple-Mail-228-558319230 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Thanks Peter. Does anyone else care to weigh in with some opinions on = this prior to the -00 deadline? Regards, Gonzalo On Feb 13, 2011, at 8:07 AM, Peter Musgrave wrote: > Hi,=20 >=20 > 1. I guess I favour tabs (since I expect a lot of spaces in fields) = despite their drawbacks in e.g. Telnet.=20 >=20 > 2. I would avoid the equals and quotes since this introduces two = elements which could be in the data whereas the TLV introduces only one = (comma) >=20 > Peter Musgrave > (as individual) >=20 > On 2011-02-10, at 1:52 AM, Gonzalo Salgueiro wrote: >=20 >> Folks - >>=20 >> In preparation for the -00 draft of the WG implementation draft, I = need to close on a few unresolved issues that we agreed during the = Virtual Interim Meeting to take to the list for further discussion. = Please provide timely feedback so we minimize the number of open issues = to discuss in Prague. >>=20 >> 1. Shall we use a TAB or a SPACE (or any LWS) as field delimiters? >> Considerations and points raised: >>=20 >> - TABs don=92t survive Telnet or web pages very well, especially when = copy/pasting. >> - spaces can appear inside fields (as can most other delimiters we = choose) >> - how do TAB and SPACE delimiters interact with shell tools (rep, = cut, awk) >>=20 >> 2. Do we need to update the syntax of the optionally logged fields = from the current well known (though possibly more cryptic) TLV = representation? >>=20 >> 01,07,foo.bar 02,0b,hello world =20 >>=20 >> to something more easily readable (like tag=3D"value")? >>=20 >> 1=3D"foo.bar" 2=3D"hello world=94 >>=20 >> Considerations and points raised: >>=20 >> - some concern about adding quotes around values (since some fields = will contain quotes) >> - this issue exists for almost any delimiter >> - essentially a matter of "taste" >>=20 >>=20 >> Warm Regards, >>=20 >> --Gonzalo >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> sip-clf mailing list >> sip-clf@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-clf >=20 --Apple-Mail-228-558319230 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Hi, 

1. = I guess I favour tabs (since I expect a lot of spaces in fields) despite = their drawbacks in e.g. Telnet. 

2. I = would avoid the equals and quotes since this introduces two elements = which could be in the data whereas the TLV introduces only one = (comma)

Peter Musgrave
(as = individual)

On 2011-02-10, at 1:52 AM, Gonzalo = Salgueiro wrote:

Folks = -

In = preparation for the -00 draft of the WG implementation draft, I need to = close on a few unresolved issues that we agreed during the Virtual = Interim Meeting to take to the list for further discussion. Please = provide timely feedback so we minimize the number of open issues to = discuss in Prague.
1. Shall we use a TAB or = a SPACE (or any LWS) as field delimiters?

- = TABs don=92t survive Telnet or web pages very well, especially when = copy/pasting.
- = spaces can appear inside fields (as can most other delimiters we = choose)
- how do TAB and SPACE = delimiters interact with shell tools (rep, cut, awk)

2. Do we need to update the = syntax of the optionally logged fields from the current well known = (though possibly more cryptic) TLV representation?

<mandatory fields> = 01,07,foo.bar 02,0b,hello world     =  

to something more easily = readable (like tag=3D"value")?
<mandatory fields> = 1=3D"foo.bar" 2=3D"hello world=94
Considerations and = points raised:
- some concern about = adding quotes around values (since some fields will contain = quotes)
- this issue exists for = almost any delimiter
- = essentially a matter of "taste"

Warm = Regards,

--Gonzalo

_______________________________________________
sip-clf = mailing list
sip-clf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.or= g/mailman/listinfo/sip-clf


= --Apple-Mail-228-558319230-- From peter.musgrave@magorcorp.com Mon Feb 28 08:33:54 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sip-clf@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: sip-clf@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03F6B3A6A10 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 08:33:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ViQ-v1uYJLlk for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 08:33:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CB153A69F9 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 08:33:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by iwl42 with SMTP id 42so3650270iwl.31 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 08:34:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.42.223.65 with SMTP id ij1mr5203924icb.349.1298910893571; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 08:34:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from petermac.magor.local ([72.1.217.106]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ye16sm9490icb.9.2011.02.28.08.34.52 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 28 Feb 2011 08:34:52 -0800 (PST) From: Peter Musgrave Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-37-628627744 Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 11:34:51 -0500 References: <20110224233647.1AE2B3A6876@core3.amsl.com> To: "sip-clf@ietf.org Mailing" Message-Id: <2BB06543-1C3E-4EB7-B246-9A17BF536D92@magorcorp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Subject: [sip-clf] Fwd: SIPCLF - Requested session has been scheduled for IETF 80 X-BeenThere: sip-clf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: SIP Common Log File format discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:33:54 -0000 --Apple-Mail-37-628627744 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi all,=20 Agenda thus far will be the problem statement and text format doc.=20 Any additions? Regards,=20 Peter Musgrave Begin forwarded message: > From: IETF Secretariat > Date: February 24, 2011 6:36:47 PM EST > To: Peter.Musgrave@magorcorp.com > Cc: gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com, rjsparks@nostrum.com, = session-request@ietf.org > Subject: SIPCLF - Requested session has been scheduled for IETF 80=20 >=20 > Dear Peter Musgrave, >=20 > The sessions that you have requested have been scheduled. > Below is the scheduled session information followed by=20 > the information of sessions that you have requested. >=20 > SIPCLF Session 1 (1 hour) > Friday, Afternoon Session I 1300-1400 > Room Name: Karlin II & III > ---------------------------------------------- >=20 >=20 >=20 > Requested Information: >=20 >=20 > --------------------------------------------------------- > Working Group Name: sipclf > Area Name: Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area > Session Requester: Peter Musgrave >=20 > Number of Sessions: 1 > Length of Session(s): 1 hour >=20 >=20 > Number of Attendees: 50 > Conflicts to Avoid: > First Priority: ipfix opsarea opsawg eman sipcore siprec avt = dispatch alto soc cuss clue >=20 > Special Requests: >=20 > --------------------------------------------------------- >=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail-37-628627744 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Hi = all, 

Agenda thus far will be the problem = statement and text format doc. 

Any = additions?

Regards, 

Peter Musgrave

Begin forwarded message:

From: IETF Secretariat = <agenda@ietf.org>
Date: February 24, 2011 = 6:36:47 PM EST
Subject: SIPCLF - Requested session has been scheduled for = IETF 80

Dear Peter Musgrave,

The = sessions that you have requested have been scheduled.
Below is the = scheduled session information followed by
the information of = sessions that you have requested.

SIPCLF Session 1 (1 = hour)
Friday, Afternoon Session I 1300-1400
Room Name: Karlin II = & = III
----------------------------------------------



Reque= sted = Information:


--------------------------------------------------= -------
Working Group Name: sipclf
Area Name: Real-time = Applications and Infrastructure Area
Session Requester: Peter = Musgrave

Number of Sessions: 1
Length of Session(s):  1 = hour


Number of Attendees: 50
Conflicts to Avoid:
=  First Priority: ipfix opsarea opsawg eman  sipcore siprec avt = dispatch alto soc cuss clue

Special = Requests:

---------------------------------------------------------=



= --Apple-Mail-37-628627744--