Re: next step

[Cristian Estan <cestan@cs.ucsd.edu>]

Hi Nick,

Sorry for the delay in answering, but I was caught up with other stuff. 
This might not be the right time to address some of the issues I raise 
below, but if so, just let me know.

First of all what is the time scale? By when do we need to finish this 
charter? What about the other documents?

Now feedback on the charter:

1. Filtering is not mentioned in the charter and neither is drill-down. 
My understanding is that we also want to do this. If so, the charter has 
to mention that we want to a) give a protocol for configuring new report 
streams in real time. Furthermore we also need to b) give the exact 
syntax and semantics for the filters we might want to use (e.g. only 
report on packets from prefix X because that's what we want to track for 
some reason). We might put this under the generic heading of selectors 
for packet sampling, but IMO we need to mention it explicitly.

2. There are some terms whose meaning is not exactly clear to me. I am 
specifically not clear about overlaps between these terms and other type 
of relations (e.g. A is an instantiation of B) between them.

a) report structure defined in 2.
b) format of packet reports defined in 3. i)
c) the packet reports defined in 3 ii)
d) report format used in 5.
e) report stream format used in 5.
f) export as used in 5.

3. Heading 2. seems to implicitly exclude the possibility of full 
packets or chunks thereof being forwarded/exported to the management 
station. I think we should explicitly say that unparsed packets (or 
parts of packets (e.g. the first x bytes)) can be included in the reports.

4. This overlaps a little with my point 1 a). 5. says that the export 
destination should be dynamically configurable. Why just the 
destination? Why not the other parameters too?

5. Minor point that's maybe not for the charter document to address, but 
are we living at layer 3 or layer 2 (or both)? More exactly do we care 
about MAC headers and the like or we specifically target only the IP 
packet from within?

Cheers,

Cristian

Nick Duffield wrote:

>Folks,
>
>as I understand from our area directors, the next step is for us to 
>agree upon a charter. This will be taken to the IESG, and that body
>will decide whether to charter PSAMP as an IETF Working Group.
>
>This will involve reaching a consensus on the aims, scope, and
>issues arising out of the talks and discussions at the BOF. As a
>starting point, I'll take the draft charter from the BOF agenda
> 
>http://www.ietf.org/ietf/02mar/psamp.txt
>
>and flesh out the thinner parts over the next few days. 
>Please send any comments on this draft charter to the list.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Nick
>
>--
>to unsubscribe send a message to psamp-request@ops.ietf.org with
>the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
>archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/psamp/>
>



--
to unsubscribe send a message to psamp-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/psamp/>