• Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG
  • Awaiting Expert Review/Resolution of Issues Raised
  • Awaiting External Review/Resolution of Issues Raised
  • Awaiting Merge with Other Document
  • Author or Editor Needed
  • Waiting for Referenced Document
  • Waiting for Referencing Document
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by AD
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by IESG
  • Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway
  • Other - see Comment Log

IETF :: sipclf

Current state: WG Document

Viewing the last 20 entries. Show full log.

(System)

RFC published

(System)

RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48

(System)

IANA Action state changed to No IC

Cindy Morgan

State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent

Amy Vezza

State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent

Amy Vezza

IESG has approved the document

Amy Vezza

Closed "Approve" ballot

Amy Vezza

Ballot approval text was generated

Amy Vezza

State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup

Ralph Droms

[Ballot comment]
I've cleared my DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. Thanks
for addressing the issues I raised.

Ralph Droms

[Ballot Position Update] Position for Ralph Droms has been changed to No Objection from Discuss

Benoit Claise

[Ballot Position Update] Position for Benoit Claise has been changed to No Objection from Discuss

Vijay Gurbani

New revision available

Stephen Farrell

[Ballot Position Update] Position for Stephen Farrell has been changed to No Objection from Discuss

(System)

Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed

Vijay Gurbani

New revision available

Ralph Droms

[Ballot discuss]
This is a nicely written, easy to understand document. Thank you.

I'd like to discuss some minor clarifications that I think would help
the document more accurately describe what it is about and what it
specifies (as it is a Standards Track document). I'll emphasize that
these are points for discussion rather than issues where I think the
document is unequivocally wrong.

1. (cleared after discussion with Robert Sparks)

2. Are the mandatory fields described in section 8.1 the only fields
that will ever be allowed or is there an expectation that new
mandatory and optional fields might be defined at some point? I ask
because I read the first sentence of section 8.2 to mean that other
fields (TBD in the future) are disallowed from SIP CLF records:

Each SIP CLF record MUST consist of all the mandatory data model
elements outlined in Section 8.1.

It's a small change, but would this replacement be more accurate:

Each SIP CLF record MUST contain all of the mandatory data model
elements outlined in Section 8.1.

3. Another small change, but significant (my opinion, of course!)
would be in the last sentence of the abstract, which led me to believe
the document would be specifying more than it actually does:

We propose a common log file
format for SIP servers that can be used uniformly by user agents,
proxies, registrars, redirect servers as well as back-to-back user
agents.

Does this better describe the contents of the document:

This document describes a framework, including requirements and
analysis of existing, and specifies a data model for development of
a SIP CLF for SIP servers that can be used uniformly by user
agents, proxies, registrars, redirect servers as well as
back-to-back user agents.

Ralph Droms

Ballot discuss text updated for Ralph Droms

Cindy Morgan

State changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation

Gonzalo Camarillo

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo

Viewing the last 20 entries. Show full log.