[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: draft on sampling techniques
-- Tanja Zseby wrote on 29 August 2002 12:49 +0200:
Hi Andy,
Andy Bierman wrote:
At 11:37 AM 8/27/2002 +0200, Tanja Zseby wrote:
Dear psamp people,
I started a draft on sampling techniques for packet selection (document is attached). The document tries to define some terminology and describes various sampling methods and their parameters.
If you have any comments or if you like to contribute some text please let me know.
I know that there were once some volunteers for writing psamp documents. Are there people already working on other documents than the framework draft ?
This draft is getting a lot of positive responses.
Here is a snippet from the charter describing this deliverable:
1. Selectors for packet sampling. Define the set of primitive
packet selection operations for network elements, the parameters
by which they may be configured, and the ways in which they can be combined.
2. Packet Information. Specify extent of packet that is to be made
available for reporting. Target for inclusion the packet's IP header,
some subsequent bytes of the packet, and encapsulating headers if present.
Full packet capture of arbitrary packet streams is explicitly out of scope.
Specify variants for IPv4 and IPv6, extent of IP packet available under
encapsulation methods, and under packet encryption.
The charter says these two items will be combined in 1 draft.
So I have 3 questions for you and the WG:
1) Should these topics really be combined into 1 draft? If so,
would you be willing to take on the Packet Information topic
as part of your draft?
I would prefer to have two documents. Simply to prevent getting a too large
draft (simplifies editing, less updates, etc.). We can always merge documents
if it turns out later that it would be better to have these issues covered in
one draft.
I agree to this position. Both issues (packet selectors and packet
information) can be progressed in parallel and rather independently
of each other. Therefore it appears to be benefitial having two documents.
However, the question whether to finally submit the documents to become two
separate or a single joint RFC can be decided later, when we know more about
their content.
Is there someone who would volunteer to start a draft on packet information ?
2) Should this document be a standards track or informational RFC?
If standards track, it is hard to pick out the normative text
in your draft.
I assume it has to be standard track because it will describe which
schemes/parameters should be supported by vendors. And I also think that
the draft needs a lot more work, e.g. statements on what schemes/parameters
and features must/should/may be supported etc. (like Christian recommended).
I think it would be wise to wait with the decision on which track to go for,
until the framework document has a clear shape. Then, hopefully it will tell us
whether or not a standard is required and what need to be standadized.
For the document so far, I agree with Andy that it does not contain much to
get standardized. But if it develops further and defines what is required for
a PSAMP selector it certainly can be considered for standard track.
Juergen
--
Juergen Quittek quittek@ccrle.nec.de Tel: +49 6221 90511-15
NEC Europe Ltd., Network Laboratories Fax: +49 6221 90511-55
Adenauerplatz 6, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany http://www.ccrle.nec.de
Regards
Tanja
--
Dipl.-Ing. Tanja Zseby
FhI FOKUS/Global Networking Email: zseby@fokus.fhg.de
Kaiserin-Augusta-Allee 31 Phone: +49-30-3463-7153
D-10589 Berlin, Germany Fax: +49-30-3463-8153
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Living on earth is expensive but it includes a free trip around the sun." (Anonymous)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
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/>