RE: next step

["Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar (UMKC-Student)" <saq66@umkc.edu>]

Hi all,
My piece of comments on the proposed charter

1.The working group should work on  some more applications where
 psamp can be really useful...might be as best current practices (bcp).
 Actually,many applications cross my mind.
some are as follows:
- source address verification:
 efficient packet filtering can be applied to prohibit DoS 
 attacks by source address spoofing (RFC 2267)
- tracing the DoS attack path  ( like SYN attack) 
   Packet filtering can be helpful in enhancing the security features of 
  the routers.It not only helps in detecting the attacks but with an 
   effective packet filtering ,certain form of attacks can be obviated .

So,My reasoning is *best current practices on various applications 
will give us more idea on places where psamp  will be extremely useful 
and throw light on how well they scale with growing network and various 
filtering and sampling techniques*.

2.I am not clear whether you are making the packet filtering function to be 
generic or leave to the discretion of the implementors.We can come up with the
rules,matching conditions and action parameters .

3.The minutes does talk about counters.Packet counters do give lot of details
and even aid in sampling.So,we should also focus on how packet counters will be 
useful in packet measurements

4.What i am stressing out of 2 and 3  is *the WG should also  address packet 
filtering and counters  as they aid packet sampling in many ways*.

5.The distinction of packets by layers (MAC,IP address ,ports etc..) need not be 
made explicti.I feel  taking packet statistics at various layers has its own 
benifits.Even TCP headers have many values .Cant we  leave this distinction to be 
generic and allow to implementors discretion.Focus can  be more on sampling,filtering 
and other techniques

6.We should also built the framework such that integartion with RMON ,Sflow and other 
measurement framework is possible.I am more particular in this because  most of the
implementors (ex.Foundary) apply a combination of the existing technology.
Also,we can reuse the existing protocols as much as we can than writing from scrach.

-senthil

-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Duffield [mailto:duffield@research.att.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 5:19 PM
To: psamp@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Bert Wijnen; Randy Bush
Subject: next step


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/>