[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Begin WG Last Call: draft-psamp-framework-05.txt



At 05:33 AM 2/2/2004, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
>Juergen,
>
>I am wondering about the motivation of your decision to publish the framework document as informational. The charter says nothing about it. The document includes mandatory requirements (for example section 5.1 - Mandatory Contents of Packet Reports). What is the 'nature of the document' that leads you (as WG Chair) to advice that this document falls under the definition of an Informational document, as per Section 4.2.2 of RFC 2026?

I think we have an open issue here that the WG needs to discuss:
 - should the framework contain normative text or not?
  
IMO, the answer is yes, but it depends on the details --
if one of the other existing drafts is a better place for
the text, then it should be moved there.

The mandatory contents of packet reports contents
is not an obvious call.  The psamp-info draft is the only
possible candidate, but we should keep protocol conformance
details out of the info model. (Unlike MIBs, an info model
should not be coupled to a specific protocol.)
So the Framework is probably the best choice for this
particular normative detail.  

>       
>
>Thanks and Regards,
>
>Dan

Andy





>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-psamp@ops.ietf.org 
>> [mailto:owner-psamp@ops.ietf.org]On Behalf Of Juergen Quittek
>> Sent: 31 January, 2004 12:10 AM
>> To: psamp@ops.ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: Begin WG Last Call: draft-psamp-framework-05.txt
>> 
>> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> Inline please find a small correction of the WG last call.
>> 
>> --On 30.01.2004 19:39 Uhr +0100 Juergen Quittek wrote:
>> 
>> > Dear all,
>> >
>> > The PSAMP WG has completed work on
>> >
>> >    A Framework for Packet Selection and Reporting.
>> >
>> > The WG proposes that the I-D 'draft-psamp-framework-05.txt'
>> > is the completed version of this document.
>> >
>> > The WG members are strongly urged to review this document as
>> > soon as possible, and express any concerns, or identify any errors,
>> > in an email to the PSAMP WG mailing list.
>> >
>> > Unless there are strong objections, published on the PSAMP 
>> WG mailing
>> > list by Friday, February 20th, this document will be forwarded
>> > to the OPS Area Directors for standards track consideration by
>> > the IESG.
>> 
>> This is not correct. Considering the nature of the document
>> the target will be an informational RFC.
>> 
>>     Juergen
>> 
>> > Please send all comments to the WG mailing list at 
>> psamp@ops.ietf.org.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> >     Juergen
>> > --
>> > Juergen Quittek        quittek@netlab.nec.de       Tel: +49 
>> 6221 90511-15
>> > NEC Europe Ltd.,       Network Laboratories        Fax: +49 
>> 6221 90511-55
>> > Kurfuersten-Anlage 36, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany   
>http://www.ccrle.nec.de
>>
>> --
>> 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/>
>
>--
>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/>