I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer for 
this draft (for background on appsdir, please see 
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you 
may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD 
before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-sipclf-format-05
Title: Format for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Common Log Format
        (CLF)
Reviewer: Claudio Allocchio
Review Date: 2012-01-18
IETF Last Call Date: unknown
IESG Telechat Date: unknown

NOTE: is there is an IESG telechat which I'm missing, just copy this 
messae to iesg ML!

Summary:

This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC; it just 
needs one consideration about a minor issue about an external reference, 
and fixing some Nits.

Major Issues:

NONE

Minor Issues:

just one !

* Section "3. Document Conventions"

The authors have decided "For the sake of clarity and completeness" to 
quote a full section of RFC4475 into this document. However there were 
quite long discussions in the Apps Dir in other reviews if this quoting 
practice is appropriate or not, because it can lead to discrepacies, when 
the quoted document is updated or obsoleted, resuing in confusion for the 
readers who just trust the quoted text without checking the state of the 
referenced document. I would suggest, as in the other cases, NOT to quote 
the external text, but to use an explicit external reference only, urging 
the reader to check that "for the sake of clarity".

Nits:

* Section "Copyright Notice"

change the year to 2012.

* Section "3. Document Conventions"

remember to change "formatting rules for Internet-Drafts" into "formatting 
rules for RFCs" when published.

* Section "4. Format"

I do understand that it probably does not fit into the I-D formatting line 
lenghts, but... maybe an attempt to add aside the SIP CLF record depicted 
in Figure 1 the grouping described as

                                  <IndexPointers>
                                  <MandatoryFields>
                                  <OptionalFields>

in the figure 1 itself (on the left?) may help in reading the distinction, 
and maybe may even not require to repeat portions of the figure itself 
later in the I-D, like in figure 3, figure 4 and figure 5. It is really a 
nit and just a suggestion. Not really important.

What I am suggesting:

        +----------------------------------+
       /|                                  |
      / |                                  |
    P   |                                  |
    o   |                                  |
  I i   |                                  |
  n n   |                                  |
  d t   |                                  |
  e e   |                                  |
  x r   |                                  |
    s   |                                  |
     \  |                                  |
       \|                                  |
        +----------------------------------+
       /|                                  |
      / |                                  |
  M     |                                  |
  a F   |                                  |
  n i   |                                  |
  d e   |                                  |
  a l   |                                  |
  t d   |                                  |
  o s   |                                  |
  r     |                                  |
  y  \  |                                  |
       \|                                  |
        +----------------------------------+
       /|                                  |
      / |                                  |
  O     |                                  |
  p F   |                                  |
  t i   |                                  |
  i e   |                                  |
  o l   |                                  |
  n d   |                                  |
  a s   |                                  |
  l     |                                  |
     \  |                                  |
       \|                                  |
        +----------------------------------+

* Section "5. Example SIP CLF Record"

Remember to change "Due to internet-draft conventions" into "Due to RFC 
conventions" when published (and also "to format it for an RFC" later 
on...).

* From the DataTracker ID Nits check tool (References Nits):

   == Unused Reference: 'RFC5612' is defined on line 984, but no explicit
      reference was found in the text

   ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft:
      draft-ietf-sipclf-problem-statement (ref.
      'I-D.ietf-sipclf-problem-statement')

Comment: the document shepard is aware and has a solution for these nits. 
Just apply it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claudio Allocchio             G   A   R   R          Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it
                         Senior Technical Officer
tel: +39 040 3758523      Italian Academic and       G=Claudio; S=Allocchio;
fax: +39 040 3758565        Research Network         P=garr; A=garr; C=it;

            PGP Key: http://www.cert.garr.it/PGP/keys.php3#ca