Subject: [CDNi] comments/questions - draft-lefaucheur-cdni-logging-delivery-01

From: Gene Golovinsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 08:53:21 -0700

comments/questions - draft-lefaucheur-cdni-logging-delivery-01

Hi Francois.

As we discussed during last week IETF meeting here some comments on the
draft.

My general understanding is that not only humans, but also various tools
should be able to take advantage of these logs.

Assuming that this is the case…

1.      Content and format of the header:

a.      The format of the version field probably needs to be defined; at
the moment the example looks like free flowing ASCII “v1.0”. This is not
easy to parse for a tool

b.      What does unique Log-ID mean? And unique within scope of what?

c.      Time stamp format. Can we use RFC 5424, section 6.2.3 timestamp
definition

d.      I would also suggest to have a length of the log record in the
header. It makes parsing a bit easier and also provides additional protection
against misreading the end of the log record

2.      This may be a controversial question, but why would not we use
Syslog (RFC 5424) for logging? It provides plenty of extensibility
through STRUCTURED-DATA
(SD-ID, SD-ELEMENT, SD-PARAM) and ways to branch out into enterprise
specific needs. It will take care of many topics related to header such as
ID, timestamps, source identifier.

Cheers.

--Gene