Re: Measurement Process -> Metering Process

[Juergen Quittek <quittek@netlab.nec.de>]

Hi Benoit,

Thanks for elaborating this change.
Please find a comment in line.

--On 19.12.2005 17:28 Uhr +0100 Benoit Claise wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I applied the editorial changes.
>
> 1. I deleted the definition of "Reporting Process"
> 2. I removed/replaced all remaining occurrence of "Reporting Process"
>     btw, as a consequence, I updated the definitions of "packet report", "report interpretation", "report stream"
> 3. I deleted the definition of "Measurement Process"
> 4. I modified all remaining occurrence of "Measurement Process" by "Selection Process"
>    btw, as a consequence, I modified the definitions of "Exporting Process"
>    I also modified the different requirements from [PSAMP-FMWK] that I was quoting in section 6.
>    As a consequence, [PSAMP-FMWK] will have to be updated accordingly.
>
> Then, the figure becomes.
>
>
>                +---------+      +---------+
>      Observed  |Selection|      |Exporting|
>      Packet--->|Process  |----->|Process  |--->Collector
>      Stream    +---------+      +---------+
>               \--Metering-/
>                \-Process-/
>
>      Figure B: PSAMP Processes

Shouldn't it be just

              +---------+      +---------+
    Observed  |Metering |      |Exporting|
    Packet--->|Process  |----->|Process  |--->Collector
    Stream    +---------+      +---------+

?

   Juergen

> The same steps from 1 to 4 will have to be executed for [PSAMP-FMWK] and [PSAMP-TECH]. Alternatively, you might copy the new definitions from the next [PSAMP-PROTO] version.
>
> Regards, Benoit.
>
>
>  Dear all,
>
> Do I understand correctly from the meeting minutes (below) that we get rid of the Reporting Process.
>
>
>
> Open Issue (not numbered): Terminology Metering Process (IPFIX) vs.
>   Measurement Process(PSAMP)
> Terminology problem: When psamp started it wasn't clear that ipfix would be
> chosen for export, the architecture is similar but still different. What IPFIX
> calls "metering" is defined as "measurement" in PSAMP terminology.
> Juergen: Let's use term "metering" for both.  Shall we also drop terms
>   "selection process" and "reporting process"?
> Tanja: Keep selection process as part of metering process (is in line with
>   IPFIX, because metering process can contain sampling/filtering).  But
>   selection process should be kept.
> Nick: I agree.
> Juergen: The changes need to be applied also to the framework draft and the
>   packet selection draft that are currently in AD review.
>
>
> Without objections, I will be removing the concept of Reporting Process in [PSAMP-PROTO].
> Anyway, we don't need it in the protocol.
>
> Regards, Benoit.
>
>
>
>
> Tanja, Nick, and al.
>
> Regarding the "Measurement Process -> Metering Process" issue discussed during the IETF meeting, I understand that:
> - the Measurement Process definition disappears
> - we replace all instances of Measurement Process by (IPFIX) Metering Process
> - we keep the Selection Process
>
> I was not too clear about the following point:
> - do we keep the Reporting Process?
>    There is actually no information about it (no such thing such as Reporting Process ID)
>    This is just a concept, right?
>
> 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/>



--
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/>