RE: Open Issue 5: PSAMP transport protocol

[<duffield@research.att.com>]

Benoit,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-psamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-psamp@ops.ietf.org] On
Behalf
> Of Benoit Claise
> Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 8:50 AM
> To: psamp
> Subject: Open Issue 5: PSAMP transport protocol
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> The PSAMP open issue 5 is the following:
> Transport protocol: SCTP and/or UDP and/or TCP. Nothing is mentioned
at
> this stage. [PSAMP-FMWK] and PSAMP charter specifically mention UDP.
> 
> Currently, we don't mention anything regarding the transport protocol
> selection in [PSAMP-PROTO].
> However, I think that we don't need to specify anything as we have
this
> sentence in the draft:
>     "The entire IPFIX protocol specifications [IPFIX-PROTO] MUST be
> implemented for the PSAMP export."
> This allows the same transport  protocol choices as specified in
> [IPFIX-PROTO].
> 

Requiring implementation of the entire IPFIX protocol is stronger than
requiring the same transport protocol choices. 

According to [PSAMP-FMWK], not all of IPFIX need be implemented, see
Section 8.1: 
	"On the other 
      hand, not all features of the IPFIX protocol will need to be 
      implemented by some PSAMP devices. For example, a device that 
      offers only content-independent sampling and basic PSAMP 
      reporting has no need to support IPFIX capabilities based on 
      packet fields."

Nick



> Please let me know if you disagree.
> 
> 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/>