Hi Juergen and Benoit, I support Juergens view. Its consistent with IPFIX and thus easier to understand for those who already implemented IPFIX (which I guess will be the majority). Thomas -- Thomas Dietz E-mail: Thomas.Dietz@netlab.nec.de Network Laboratories Phone: +49 6221 90511-28 NEC Europe Ltd. Fax: +49 6221 90511-55 Kurfuersten-Anlage 36 69115 Heidelberg, Germany http://www.netlab.nec.de > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-psamp@ops.ietf.org > [mailto:owner-psamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Juergen Quittek > Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 12:24 PM > To: Benoit Claise > Cc: psamp > Subject: Re: Measurement Process -> Metering Process > > --On 21.12.2005 11:37 Uhr +0100 Benoit Claise wrote: > > > Juergen Quittek wrote: > > > > 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 +---------+ +---------+ > > > > ? > > I would use this figure for showing consistency with IPFIX. > We can explain in the text that the metering process contains > a selection process (as it does in IPFIX). > > Thanks, > > Juergen > > > Personally, this is what I would prefer. It makes more sense. > > However, I was perfectly clear on the conclusions from the > meeting in Vancouver (this is reason why I started this thread) > > From the meeting minutes at > http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/05nov/minutes/psamp.txt > > > > 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. > > > > > > Juergen, I would be perfectly happy to edit the diagram as > you draw it. > > > > Regards, Benoit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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/> >
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature