|
duffield@research.att.com wrote: Perhaps we could use the "selection" instead of sampling (you used it in your comment Nick). A Framework for Packet Selection and Reporting? It would imply that not all packets would be selected (though all could be) and gets away from the implication of statistical methods.Benoit, Thanks for your extensive comments. I'm sorry for the delay in replying. Responses are inline below. Nick-----Original Message----- From: Duffield,Nicholas G (Nick) Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 12:30 PM To: Duffield,Nicholas G (Nick) Subject: RE: comments on draft-ietf-psamp-framework-03.txt -----Original Message----- From: Benoit Claise [mailto:bclaise@cisco.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 9:07 PM To: psamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: comments on draft-ietf-psamp-framework-03.txt Dear all, I guess this is the time of the year when we start working for the IETF again... ;) Here is a list of comments on the framework version 3 draft. As always, feel free to start a new thread on a specific topic discussed below, with a new email subject. 1. The title "A Framework for Passive Packet Measurement" I don't think this is adequate: there is not even the term "sampling" which reflects our charter and sampling is part of the abstract section. Furthermore, I think the term "passive" is implicit. Anyway we don't find this term in the charter and the abstract section, just a few instances in the draft. What about "a framework for packet sampling and reporting"?Yes, this is tricky. The feeling was that "sampling" might be interpreted as only statistical sampling, to the exclusion of other packet selection methods. On the other hand "measurement" does not convey that typically only a subset of packets would be selected. Any comments from the group on this? I'll send more comments later. Derek > |