RE: some comments on draft-ietf-psamp-framework-09.txt

[<duffield@research.att.com>]

> >> !
> >> !       SHOULD WE MAKE IT EXPLICIT THAT OBERSVATION POINT,
MEASUREMENT
> >> !       PROCESS AND EXPORTING PROCESS IDS SHOULD BE CONTAINED IN
EVERY
> >> !       PACKET REPORT?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Since an export packet may contain multiple packet reports, the
export
> >process id can be included once per export packet.
> >
> >
> >
> Did we say anywhere that exporting process IDs are included? 

Currently, Section 6.4 says about the reporting process:

	6.4	 Report Interpretation

	Information for use in Report Interpretation must include 

	[...]

	(iv) identifiers for Observation Point, Measurement Process, and
Exporting Process.

I'm thinking now that responsibility for inserting identifiers should be
split as follows: 

. Reporting Process inserts IDs for Observation Point and Measurement
Process

. Exporting Process inserts IDs for Export Process.

Reasoning: we don't exclude the case that a report on a given packet is
sent by more than one exporting process. Example: send one copy to a
local on board processor, and one copy to a remote collector. I don't
see a need for the reporting process to include both exporting process
identifiers in this case; instead each exporting process can insert its
own ID. Also, one can imagine in some configurations that the reporting
process wouldn't have the information on exporting process ID available
(i.e. processes are run on different hosts).

Following suggestions from a number of folks, the IDs would now
explicitly be inserted per report or packet, i.e.:
. packet reports each contain ID for observation point and measurement
process
. export packets (which may contain multiple report packets from
multiple measurement processes) each contain an ID for the exporting
process.

Comments?

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/>