[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Begin WG Last Call: draft-psamp-framework-05.txt
At 11:14 AM 2/24/2004, Benoit Claise wrote:
>Juergen, Andy,
>
>I wanted to review the framework draft before the deadline. I'm a little bit late I know ;)
>
>Then I'm facing the first issue discussed below: is the draft a standard track document or not?
>Because depending on the output, the review will be different!
>Just an example: the terminology section. If a standard track document, it must be the same as the PSAMP protocol draft (or almost), which in turn will be the same as the IPFIX protocol draft (for which we just agreed upon)
>
>As I guess that we will be discussing this issue regarding standard track versus informational document in Seoul, do I understand correctly that the last-call deadline is postponed?
I think there was some confusion about whether it should
be Informational or Proposed Standard and we decided
it should be Proposed Standard.
Comments now or at the IETF meeting are welcome.
>Regards, Benoit.
Andy
>>--On 02.02.2004 9:24 Uhr -0800 Andy Bierman wrote:
>>
>>>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?
>>
>>
>>Agreed.
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>
>>So far, I understood that the framework document defines requirements
>>for the protocol, info model and MIB document. Concerning section 5,
>>the framework does not talk about bits and bytes and encodings, but
>>just about which information MUST be included in which case.
>>
>>I think the protocol document will specify the required protocol
>>features in a more concrete way by naming the information elements
>>(defined in the info model) that MUST be used for providing the
>>required information. This should be (and usually is) done in a
>>way that the documents specifying the requirements do not need
>>to be part of the standard.
>>
>> Juergen
>>
>>>>
>>>>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/>
>
>
>
>--
>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/>