(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?
This document is a proposed standard. It defines a data model for logging SIP
messages.
(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 provides motivation
for a common format and defines a framework and data model for such
a log as well as a need to allow extensions.
Working Group Summary:
There were some issues with respect the choice of indexed-ascii versus binary
representation. This stalled the WG progress for a number of meetings.
There was significant discussion about whether to create this standalone format,
or build withing syslog or IPFix. The technical implications of working within
IPFix were explored and the data model documented here could be used with
IPFix. The working group decided to move ahead with the standalone format
documented in draft-ietf-sipclf-format, and this final product has good support
in the WG.
A previous version of this document received IESG review. This review raised
issues about the scope of the document (it is more than a problem statement),
and technical concerns involving internationalization.
Document Quality:
There were sample implementations of the indexed ascii format written by
Peter Musgrave and placed on the sipclf Wiki page
(<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/sipclf/trac/wiki>).
Vijay Gurbani reports that three other implementations are known.
Personnel:
Peter Musgrave is the document shepherd. Robert Sparks in 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.
The post-IESG review document was reviewed by Peter Musgrave and Robert Sparks.
Prior to IESG review it had several WG last-Calls.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
No concerns about the reviews depth/breadth.
(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 broader review was deemed necessary.
(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 specific 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.
No IPR disclosure has been filed.
(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 consensus for the fields which any format solution needs to log have been
uncontroversial. The minimal set of fields are basic to any SIP record keeping
and an extension mechanism allows customization by those who need more.
The discussion of potential mechanisms and alignment with existing mechanism
was more spirited. Syslogand Ipfix logging have had advocates at various times.
The IETF77 minutes record a discussion about a need to look seriously at IPFIX.
Syslog was also discussed and a comment made that data was too much for syslog
(and was concurred with by chair of syslog).
Some comments made (DaveH) - suggesting syslog needs further scrutiny
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip-clf/current/msg00105.html). Comments
were made expressing concern about binary content in SIP messages (Hadriel
Kaplan) and extreme sizes of some elements (Cullen Jennings). Syslog expert
(Rainer Gerhards) indicated that the size issues should not be a major concern
although there are parts of the syslog community that prefer small sizes. The
final email in this chain is
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip-clf/current/msg00141.html and after
that no one "went to bat" for syslog and energy went into discussions of IPFIX
versus Indexed ASCII.
The IPFIX vs indexed-ASCII discussion lasted for a number of meeting cycles
with neither garnering complete support. Over time the group decided to proceed
with indexed ascii. There is agreement that the data model defined by sipclf
could be used as a basis for an IPFIX format should some future group wish to
define one.
(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.)
There have been no signs of extreme discontent.
(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.
There is one NIT:
== Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of
draft-ietf-sipclf-format-05
This document is moving to IESG approval in parallel with this document.
(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?
None.
(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 no down refs.
(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).
N/A
(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.
N/A
(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.