From fluffy@cisco.com Fri May 1 05:39:19 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sip-ops@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: sip-ops@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F6E528C50D; Fri, 1 May 2009 05:39:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.593 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.593 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 gmlkDiF9kniT; Fri, 1 May 2009 05:39:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D3A328CD42; Fri, 1 May 2009 05:21:54 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.40,277,1238976000"; d="scan'208";a="160950704" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 May 2009 12:23:18 +0000 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n41CNI9u014662; Fri, 1 May 2009 05:23:18 -0700 Received: from [192.168.4.177] (rcdn-fluffy-8711.cisco.com [10.99.9.18]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n41CNHml020189; Fri, 1 May 2009 12:23:17 GMT From: Cullen Jennings To: "Elwell, John" In-Reply-To: <0D5F89FAC29E2C41B98A6A762007F5D001D4B064@GBNTHT12009MSX.gb002.siemens.net> Impp: xmpp:cullenfluffyjennings@jabber.org References: <49F864E8.20005@alcatel-lucent.com> <0D5F89FAC29E2C41B98A6A762007F5D001D4B064@GBNTHT12009MSX.gb002.siemens.net> Message-Id: <217DAD6D-52BF-4E85-8BD3-6024C570B5D5@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 06:23:16 -0600 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=263; t=1241180598; x=1242044598; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fluffy@cisco.com; z=From:=20Cullen=20Jennings=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[dispatch]=20[Sipping]=20SIP-CLF=3A=20R esults=20on=20ASCII=20vs.=20binary=20representation |Sender:=20; bh=XSjDlbWIOima53lP/CuYgFw8tzwFc+10x9hH7Z6f7eo=; b=OJcgP/aiFXIXrl1MNpZrqsgRP3U3DWiNPUr2ALLcJcqB0okhR0GE7xOE+Y YMmeO+q2U2S9dYMt9iq510up0E1YdfvyXPK7whVGRivAVsH4hFEPoC9/S0Cc 1JP+Kw48xG; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=fluffy@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 01 May 2009 07:20:53 -0700 Cc: dispatch@ietf.org Subject: Re: [sip-ops] [dispatch] [Sipping] SIP-CLF: Results on ASCII vs. binary representation X-BeenThere: sip-ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: SIP Operations List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 12:39:19 -0000 On Apr 29, 2009, at 1:34 PM, Elwell, John wrote: > p.s. which list - DISPATCH or SIP-OPS? Folks, please use DISPATCH for this for now. Thanks, Cullen ANd in gneraly, please, don't cross post whole threads if at all posible. From tom.taylor@rogers.com Fri May 1 12:32:47 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sip-ops@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: sip-ops@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F00503A6AD2 for ; Fri, 1 May 2009 12:32:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.263 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.263 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.336, BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 MliZvYzNdZ57 for ; Fri, 1 May 2009 12:32:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp123.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com (smtp123.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com [206.190.53.28]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1090B3A6943 for ; Fri, 1 May 2009 12:32:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 51869 invoked from network); 1 May 2009 19:34:10 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=rogers.com; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=kanlFEcp/JK2XORXKYXauB3ZAGAG0b6DT03H6dH8zk/gyPMm/XLXh2NADhpP5crO+Bdv/4yWTsSgLbAzz3SJN0c3MQThpD6RfyQqy7nvmt+VESyQ1g9jX1NIZiNnRHHYnugo7s3cbHheAcuYbYfIvYtQsBF3hp1lQkWDYaCWiOU= ; Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.0.100?) (tom.taylor@72.140.46.24 with plain) by smtp123.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 May 2009 19:34:10 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: _RvepyEVM1mQ6T8fj3PouP4hE.t4_aOwpwoWEhUNJS_u2Kk4W1uIbJAUh2WVTc5X_A-- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 Message-ID: <49FB4EB6.6050208@rogers.com> Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 15:34:14 -0400 From: Tom Taylor User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hadriel Kaplan References: <49F864E8.20005@alcatel-lucent.com> <167dfb9b0904290847u322161d5h3da18771344436ec@mail.gmail.com> <49F8988C.9050900@alcatel-lucent.com> <167dfb9b0904291203m4e74ab39s5f83cfa1be9799a0@mail.gmail.com> <49F8B827.3060501@alcatel-lucent.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 02 May 2009 03:07:37 -0700 Cc: "sip-ops@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [sip-ops] [dispatch] SIP-CLF: Results on ASCII vs. binary representation X-BeenThere: sip-ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: SIP Operations List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 19:32:48 -0000 How about adding length fields to ASCII? Hadriel Kaplan wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: dispatch-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dispatch-bounces@ietf.org] On >> Behalf Of Vijay K. Gurbani >> >> So after tweaking all kinds of optimizations for binary CLF, the >> best we can do is approach ASCII CLF without any optimizations. >> This much no one will dispute, I hope. > > Depends on how you plan to disambiguate legal characters in the fields from the field separators. In binary the length field removes the need for disambiguation, or a CRLF itself does it (depending on the format). In ascii, if you have to escape characters, then that escaping and de-escaping could be a big hit. > > But anyway, I think the real question that needs to be answered *first* is "what is the purpose of the CLF?" What is it going to help admins do? Is it for troubleshooting, or for registration audit logging, or for IDS systems, etc? > > -hadriel > _______________________________________________ > dispatch mailing list > dispatch@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch > From dean.willis@softarmor.com Sun May 3 09:32:21 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sip-ops@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: sip-ops@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E30E3A70D8 for ; Sun, 3 May 2009 09:32:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.203 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396] 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 824CgdK9ln+W for ; Sun, 3 May 2009 09:32:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nylon.softarmor.com (nylon.softarmor.com [66.135.38.164]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E1473A70EC for ; Sun, 3 May 2009 09:32:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.65.6.71] (mobile-032-145-213-160.mycingular.net [32.145.213.160] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by nylon.softarmor.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5) with ESMTP id n43GXVPs016230 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 3 May 2009 11:33:38 -0500 From: "Dean Willis" To: Tom Taylor Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 11:33:35 -0500 Message-ID: X-Mailer: EPOC Email Version 2.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Language: i-default Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "sip-ops@ietf.org" , Hadriel Kaplan Subject: Re: [sip-ops] [dispatch] SIP-CLF: Results on ASCII vs. binary representation X-BeenThere: sip-ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Dean Willis List-Id: SIP Operations List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 May 2009 16:32:21 -0000 Right. In my experience, binary offers only marginal performance over = structured ASCII. Structure can be applied either through fixed lengths or = through encoded length indicators. The encoded length indicators can also = be fixed length, or structured in some other easy way. This can produce the = benefits of human-readable messages combined with rapid parsing, with the = only overheads relative to binary being slightly larger records and some = string-to-number conversions. -- Dean Willis -original message- Subject: Re: [sip-ops] [dispatch] SIP-CLF: Results on ASCII vs. binary = representation From: Tom Taylor Date: 05/02/2009 05:09 How about adding length fields to ASCII? From scott.lawrence@nortel.com Sun May 3 12:35:35 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sip-ops@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: sip-ops@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 657473A6A22; Sun, 3 May 2009 12:35:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.936 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.936 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.663, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 7eVs8rUv+ceH; Sun, 3 May 2009 12:35:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zcars04e.nortel.com (zcars04e.nortel.com [47.129.242.56]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06EF03A681C; Sun, 3 May 2009 12:35:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zrtphxs1.corp.nortel.com (casmtp.ca.nortel.com [47.140.202.46]) by zcars04e.nortel.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id n43JZpe04304; Sun, 3 May 2009 19:35:52 GMT Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([47.17.25.99]) by zrtphxs1.corp.nortel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sun, 3 May 2009 15:36:42 -0400 From: "Scott Lawrence" To: RAI DISPATCH Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Nortel Networks Date: Sun, 03 May 2009 15:36:40 -0400 Message-Id: <1241379400.3528.50.camel@scott> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.5 (2.24.5-1.fc10) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 May 2009 19:36:42.0453 (UTC) FILETIME=[7C642050:01C9CC26] Cc: SIP Operations Subject: [sip-ops] draft-lawrence-sip-3rd-party-authorization-00 X-BeenThere: sip-ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: RAI DISPATCH List-Id: SIP Operations List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 May 2009 19:35:35 -0000 draft-lawrence-sip-3rd-party-authorization-00.txt has been submitted by Scott Lawrence and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-lawrence-sip-3rd-party-authorization Revision: 00 Title: Third Party Authorization in the Session Initiation Protocol Creation_date: 2009-05-03 WG ID: Independent Submission Number_of_pages: 15 Abstract: This draft describes some circumstances that are common in SIP deployments which lack a rigorous authorization model, and points out some ways in which this has resulted in poor security characteristics. The purpose of this document is to stimulate discussion of the identified problem and proposed requirements for any solution. In this draft, I lay out a case for why SIP would benefit from an authorization model that allows for one party to send a request to a second party who must decide whether or not to allow the request, but have a third party provide an explicit authorization in the request. The goal is to allow separation of the evaluation of a request with respect to a security policy from other parts of responding to the request. I _do_not_ include any discussion in this draft of _how_ the requirements it lists could or should be met. While I'm very interested in that discussion, I think it's important to first discover whether or not there is agreement in the SIP community that there really is a problem and what part or parts of that problem need to be solved; this draft is focused on that discussion. From adam@nostrum.com Mon May 4 12:57:17 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sip-ops@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: sip-ops@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9CA53A63C9 for ; Mon, 4 May 2009 12:57:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.564 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.564 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.036, BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 WNiKfDmJbf+Z for ; Mon, 4 May 2009 12:57:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAA373A659C for ; Mon, 4 May 2009 12:57:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.16.3.231] (vicuna-alt.estacado.net [75.53.54.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n44JwcxA056381 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 4 May 2009 14:58:39 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com) Message-ID: <49FF48EE.8070705@nostrum.com> Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 14:58:38 -0500 From: Adam Roach User-Agent: Postbox 1.0b11 (Macintosh/2009041623) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dean Willis References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 75.53.54.121 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism) Cc: "sip-ops@ietf.org" , Tom Taylor , Hadriel Kaplan Subject: Re: [sip-ops] [dispatch] SIP-CLF: Results on ASCII vs. binary representation X-BeenThere: sip-ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: SIP Operations List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 19:57:17 -0000 Dean Willis wrote: > Right. In my experience, binary offers only marginal performance over structured ASCII. I'll correct this slightly: binary offers only marginal performance over *properly* structured ASCII. I argue that the Apache log format doesn't qualify for this description. (I say this after having to deal with processing relatively large Apache logs, and suffering from the vast quantities of time such processing takes). I'm okay with Tom's suggestion to add ASCII length (and tag?) fields to the text format. If people want to take it that direction, I could re-cast my proposed format so it contains fixed-length ASCII number representations for pointers, lengths, and tags; and so that it terminates records with something like an ASCII 0x0D. /a From simon.perreault@viagenie.ca Mon May 4 13:02:04 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sip-ops@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: sip-ops@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63B093A701D for ; Mon, 4 May 2009 13:02:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.361 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.361 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.239, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] 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 UXZ7q-4+wxec for ; Mon, 4 May 2009 13:02:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AB8E3A706A for ; Mon, 4 May 2009 13:02:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix, from userid 8) id 6457D29E15C0; Mon, 4 May 2009 16:03:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mango.viagenie.ca (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:230:c000:20a:95ff:febc:7f66]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 555ED29E159C; Mon, 4 May 2009 16:03:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <49FF4A0E.8010201@viagenie.ca> Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 16:03:26 -0400 From: Simon Perreault User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Macintosh/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adam Roach References: <49FF48EE.8070705@nostrum.com> In-Reply-To: <49FF48EE.8070705@nostrum.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "sip-ops@ietf.org" , Tom Taylor , Hadriel Kaplan Subject: Re: [sip-ops] [dispatch] SIP-CLF: Results on ASCII vs. binary representation X-BeenThere: sip-ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: SIP Operations List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 20:02:04 -0000 Adam Roach wrote: > I'm okay with Tom's suggestion to add ASCII length (and tag?) fields to > the text format. If people want to take it that direction, I could > re-cast my proposed format so it contains fixed-length ASCII number > representations for pointers, lengths, and tags; and so that it > terminates records with something like an ASCII 0x0D. +1, but with 0x0A (newline) instead of 0x0D (carriage return). Simon -- STUN/TURN server --> http://numb.viagenie.ca Interplanetary news --> http://reeves.viagenie.ca vCard 4.0 --> http://www.vcarddav.org From dean.willis@softarmor.com Mon May 4 18:43:24 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sip-ops@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: sip-ops@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9922E3A69FC for ; Mon, 4 May 2009 18:43:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 7nzBsuGJifKi for ; Mon, 4 May 2009 18:43:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nylon.softarmor.com (nylon.softarmor.com [66.135.38.164]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2B5A3A6819 for ; Mon, 4 May 2009 18:43:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.103] (cpe-76-182-235-115.tx.res.rr.com [76.182.235.115]) (authenticated bits=0) by nylon.softarmor.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5) with ESMTP id n451ikGb027037 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 4 May 2009 20:44:48 -0500 Message-Id: <7B9669B6-AAE1-4C4E-AA8E-CEA2895A9B4B@softarmor.com> From: Dean Willis To: Adam Roach In-Reply-To: <49FF48EE.8070705@nostrum.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 20:44:41 -0500 References: <49FF48EE.8070705@nostrum.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) Cc: "sip-ops@ietf.org" , Tom Taylor , Hadriel Kaplan Subject: Re: [sip-ops] [dispatch] SIP-CLF: Results on ASCII vs. binary representation X-BeenThere: sip-ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: SIP Operations List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 01:43:24 -0000 On May 4, 2009, at 2:58 PM, Adam Roach wrote: > Dean Willis wrote: >> Right. In my experience, binary offers only marginal performance >> over structured ASCII. > > I'll correct this slightly: binary offers only marginal performance > over *properly* structured ASCII. I argue that the Apache log format > doesn't qualify for this description. (I say this after having to > deal with processing relatively large Apache logs, and suffering > from the vast quantities of time such processing takes). > > I'm okay with Tom's suggestion to add ASCII length (and tag?) fields > to the text format. If people want to take it that direction, I > could re-cast my proposed format so it contains fixed-length ASCII > number representations for pointers, lengths, and tags; and so that > it terminates records with something like an ASCII 0x0D. One could design things such that each record contains an initial "structure" filed with a fixed-format series of indices (total length, number of fields, lengths for each field, followed by variable--length data fields, tab (or other reserved char) delimited followed by a CRLF terminator (included in total-length index). This gives us records that are fast-parseable, but still human-readable. -- Dean From jiri@iptel.org Mon May 4 23:06:39 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sip-ops@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: sip-ops@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33FD828C113 for ; Mon, 4 May 2009 23:06:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.431 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.431 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.168, BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 BFC9ObWvAUBt for ; Mon, 4 May 2009 23:06:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.iptel.org (smtp.iptel.org [213.192.59.67]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2538D3A68F3 for ; Mon, 4 May 2009 23:05:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jirimac.local (shell.iptel.org [213.192.59.74]) by mail.iptel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90627371022; Tue, 5 May 2009 08:05:32 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <49FFD795.4040307@iptel.org> Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 08:07:17 +0200 From: Jiri Kuthan User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Macintosh/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adam Roach References: <49FF48EE.8070705@nostrum.com> In-Reply-To: <49FF48EE.8070705@nostrum.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "sip-ops@ietf.org" , Tom Taylor , Hadriel Kaplan Subject: Re: [sip-ops] [dispatch] SIP-CLF: Results on ASCII vs. binary representation X-BeenThere: sip-ops@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: SIP Operations List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 06:06:39 -0000 Adam Roach wrote: > Dean Willis wrote: >> Right. In my experience, binary offers only marginal performance over >> structured ASCII. > > I'll correct this slightly: binary offers only marginal performance over > *properly* structured ASCII. I argue that the Apache log format doesn't > qualify for this description. (I say this after having to deal with > processing relatively large Apache logs, and suffering from the vast > quantities of time such processing takes). in my experience, text processing is VERY CPU-consuming. (may be negligible if the actual application is TREMENDOUSLY CPU-consuming) Both for writing (can be somewhat improved by a performance-oriented formatting library, most c-lib implementations are so general-purpose that performance is not considered) and reading. > > I'm okay with Tom's suggestion to add ASCII length (and tag?) fields to > the text format. If people want to take it that direction, I could > re-cast my proposed format so it contains fixed-length ASCII number > representations for pointers, lengths, and tags; and so that it > terminates records with something like an ASCII 0x0D. database guys like to use index file. (I think I see myself as a database guy in this context :-)) -jiri > > /a > _______________________________________________ > sip-ops mailing list > sip-ops@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-ops >