Subject: [sip-ops] Plea for SIP-OPS Clue - MARTINI

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 07:21:59 -0600

Dear SIP-OPS folk,

Just a heads-up about an IETF effort that needs operator input...

The MARTINI working group has been chartered to define an IETF 
standards-track mechanism for mass-registering SIP AORs for SIP PBXes. 
Typically, today this happens with a vanilla SIP REGISTER operation that 
gives no indication that additional AORs are being implicitly registered.

Charter is at http://tools.ietf.org/wg/martini/charters.

The working group is looking at a variety of proposals about how to do this, 
including switching to the use of PUBLISH, and we're seeing assertions that 
(for instance) SIP operators often drop all traffic that doesn't correspond 
to a REGISTER, so the PUBLISH would not be forwarded to the location service 
unless that filtering changes.

We're also talking about whether we should do this only for tel: URIs, which 
would be a pretty big change.

We are getting input from CableLabs on behalf of MSOs, but we're not getting 
input from other operators. If you care about this work, please take a look 
at the mailing list 
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/martini/current/maillist.html), and 
then let us know (on the MARTINI mailing list) what you think.

To Subscribe: martini-request at ietf.org
In Body: subscribe

Thanks,

Spencer, as MARTINI co-chair

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 07:32:56 -0600

Dear SIP-OPS folk,

The IETF SIPCLF working group has been chartered to develop a SIP Common Log 
Format, analogous to Apache CLF. Charter is at 
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/sipclf/charters.

As of this moment, that's the ONLY thing we're chartered to produce - so you 
could log onto a SIP box and "tail" or "grep" the logs, and kind of know 
what you'd expect to see, but considerations about correlating logs from 
multiple boxes, moving log entries to a management platform, etc. are out of 
scope.

We're looking at a variety of approaches here, and Theo and I would like to 
have your input about what would really get used by SIP operators. For 
instance, we might use an IPFIX or SYSLOG format, to inherit infrastructure 
so that SIPCLF would just be part of the management infrastructure. We'd 
love to know what operators think!

Please take a look at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip-clf/current/maillist.html, and let 
us know what you think (on the SIPCLF mailing list, of course).

Subscription information is at 
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-clf.

We would also love to hear from you about the SIPCLF problem statement, 
currently in WGLC for adoption - it's at 
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-gurbani-sipclf-problem-statement-01.txt.

Thanks!

Spencer, as SIPCLF co-chair