Hi Benoit,
see comments inline
Benoit Claise wrote:
Dear all,
In order to produce the next version of the PSAMP MIB, I've reviewed
the "sampling and filtering techniques for IP packet selection"
draft... this time with a PSAMP MIB hat. I still have a few comments on
the draft.
1. section 2 "PSAMP Documents Overview"
[PSAMP-MIB] "Definitions of Managed Objects for Packet Sampling"
describes the PSAMP management Information Base.
I see that the current MIB description use the same definition.
However, the MIB specifications go well beyond sampling... there is
also filtering and hashing!
What about "definitions of managed objects for sampling and filtering
techniques for IP packet selection"?
Note
- the draft "A Framework for Packet Selection and Reporting" should
be changed accordingly
- the MIB definition should be changed accordingly
According to out definition sampling and filtering are both packet
selection techniques So in my opiniton the MIB title should change to
"Definitions of Managed Objects for Packet Selection", the FW document
title can remain.
2. "Packet
Content" definition
[IPFIX-REQUIRE] -> [IPFIX-REQ]
done (changed for new version)
3. If I
recall correctly, the following terms have been changed in the latest
"A Framework for Packet Selection and Reporting" (at least I recall
some discussions on the mailing list): population size, sample size,
configured selection fraction, attained selection fraction
Nick and I had a teleconferecne some time ago and agreed on those
terms. So they are consistent in both drafts.
4. Table
in section 4
Change "Filter" to "Filtering" in the category column
Same section, change "cascade of a filter and a Sampling scheme" to
"cascade of Filtering and Sampling schemes"
done
5. Section
5.2.2.3
Still non-ascii characters with "sample and hold" and "local export"
done
6. Section
6.2.1.1
"In the former case determines pseudorandom variates rather than
selection probabilities" ??
changed
7. Section
6.3 "Router State Filtering"
Remove the OR.
done (now only AND is possible)
Since it seems no problem for the MIB or implementation to also have a
NOT we could also allow a NOT for the matching filter combination
Thomas, Benoit do you agree ?
8. Section
7
"In order to be compliant with PSAMP, it is sufficient to implement one
of the proposed schemes".
As far as I recall, this will be a standard track document, so it
should be written in a more formal way.
"In order to be compliant with PSAMP, one least of the proposed scheme
MUST be implemented"
done
9. section
7.1
SELECTOR_ID: ... the ID can be calculated under consideration of the
ASSOCIATIONS and a local ID.
What does the "under consideration" mean?
To get a unique ID both need to be conisdered (local ID and
associations ) ==> changed the text to "calculated as combination
of..."
10.
section 7.1
case non-uniform probabilistic and case flow state both refer to
section 5.2.2.4.
However, both the method descriptions and the 5.2.2.4 section don't
clearly explain which SELECTOR_PARAMETERS we need
Yes, because we decided that those techniques are not mature enough
nowadays to define generic parameters for the scheme and this is stated
in 5.2.2.4
11.
section 7.1
"The ASSOCIATIONS field describes the Observation Point and (possibly)
the IPFIX processes"
Possibly -> optionally without parentheses.
Note: the
MIB should take care that these parameters are optional. Proposal: a
value of 0 means unspecified?
changed. 0 (unspecified) than means it should apply to all IPFIX
processes at this observation point ?
12.
section 7.1
Case Matching -> this is not too clear that these are pairs of
(field, value). And that in case of multiple match criteria, we have
several "case matching" bound by a logical AND.
BTW, IPFIX speaks of information element and not field, so I guess it
should be a (information element, value) pair.
changed and sentence added
13.
section 7.1
case hashing -> this is not too clear how the parameters in there
match the definitions of hash domain, hash range, hash selection range,
hash-based selection, etc... BTW I have the same problem with the MIB
definitions (which obviously match these definitions)
done
14.
section 7.1
"all router state entries can be linked by AND, OR, NOT operators"
->to be limited by AND
done. Maybe possible to allow NOT operators ?
15. there
are still a lot of capitalized terms before definition. The list is too
long is to described in an email.
Either use the find function, either call me as I marked them down on
the paper draft I reviewed.
TODO
Regards
Tanja
Regards,
Benoit.
--
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/>
--
Dipl.-Ing. Tanja Zseby
Fraunhofer Institute FOKUS Email: zseby@fokus.fraunhofer.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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|