Dan,
Thanks for your review. I will address all your comments for in the next
version. However, I don't plan to have a new version before the
Transport Area directors have reviewed the doc (they asked for an
extended deadline)
Please quickly evaluate if you agree with the proposed changes. See inline.
Here are my comments. They are quite a few, it may be because it's a
good document.
Technical:
1. Section 3.2.1 - Packet Content. The definition includes in the packet
header the link layer header. This deserves at least a note, which
should draw the attention on the fact that some if the Observation Point
is located at the interface of an IP router the link header information
may not be available.
OLD
Packet Content
The Packet Content denotes the union of the packet header (which
includes link layer, network layer and other encapsulation headers)
and the packet payload.
NEW
Packet Content
The Packet Content denotes the union of the packet header (which
includes link layer, network layer and other encapsulation headers)
and the packet payload. Note that, depending on the Observation Point,
the link layer information might not be available.
Moreover, all examples later in the document use
only IP header IE, it would be useful to change or add one example to
show sub-IP header information.
Changing the section " 6.4.1 Basic Packet Report "
OLD
Here is an example of a basic Packet Report, with a
SelectionSequenceId value of 9 and ipHeaderPacketSection Information
Element of 12 bytes, 0x4500 005B A174 0000 FF11 832E, encoded with a
fixed length field.
IPFIX Template Record:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Set ID = 2 | Length = 24 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Template ID = 260 | Field Count = 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| selectionSequenceId = 301 | Field Length = 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| digestHashValue = 326 | Field Length = 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ipHeaderPacketSection = 313 | Field Length = 12 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|observationTimeMicroseconds=324| Field Length = 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
NEW
Here is an example of a basic Packet Report, with a
SelectionSequenceId value of 9 and dataLinkFrameSection Information
Element of 12 bytes, 0x4500 005B A174 0000 FF11 832E, encoded with a
fixed length field.
IPFIX Template Record:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Set ID = 2 | Length = 24 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Template ID = 260 | Field Count = 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| selectionSequenceId = 301 | Field Length = 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| digestHashValue = 326 | Field Length = 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| dataLinkFrameSection = 315 | Field Length = 12 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|observationTimeMicroseconds=324| Field Length = 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
2. Section 8.2 - PSAMP IANA considerations mention the need of a group
of experts to advise on new PSAMP selection methods. This seems a little
overkill to me, as I do not expect this advise to be required too often
in the future. One designated expert to work with IANA would seem to me
sufficient, of curse in doing his work he may consult with a team, but
this needs not be mentioned here.
Note: this was done to be inline with IPFIX information model draft:
New assignments for IPFIX Information Elements will be administered
by IANA through Expert Review [RFC2434], i.e. review by one of a
group of experts designated by an IETF Area Director.
However, I understand your point.
Changes to the section " 8.2 PSAMP Related Considerations "
OLD:
New assignments for the PSAMP selection method will be administered
by IANA, on a First Come First Served basis [RFC2434], subject to
Expert Review [RFC2434], i.e. review by one of a group of experts
designated by an IETF Operations and Management Area Director.
NEW:
New assignments for the PSAMP selection method will be administered
by IANA, on a First Come First Served basis [RFC2434], subject to
Expert Review [RFC2434].
Editorial
1. The document is using a capitalization convention where all terms
defined or mentioned in Section 3 are being written capitalized. This
includes quite common and often used terms like Sample or Flow. In order
to avoid comments about this capitalization style I suggest to explain
this convention in the terminology section.
OLD
3. Terminology
As the IPFIX export protocol is used to export the PSAMP information,
the relevant IPFIX terminology from [IPFIX-PROTO] is copied over in
this document. The terminology summary table in section 3.1 gives a
quick overview of the relationships between the different IPFIX
terms. The PSAMP terminology defined here is fully consistent with
all terms listed in [PSAMP-TECH] and [PSAMP-FMWK] but only
definitions that are relevant to the PSAMP protocol appear here.
Section 5.4 applies the PSAMP terminology to the IPFIX protocol
terminology.
NEW
3. Terminology
As the IPFIX export protocol is used to export the PSAMP information,
the relevant IPFIX terminology from [IPFIX-PROTO] is copied over in
this document. All terms defined in this section have their first
letter capitalized when used in this document. The terminology
summary table in section 3.1 gives a quick overview of the
relationships between the different IPFIX terms. The PSAMP
terminology defined here is fully consistent with all terms listed
in [PSAMP-TECH] and [PSAMP-FMWK] but only definitions that are
relevant to the PSAMP protocol appear here. Section 5.4 applies
the PSAMP terminology to the IPFIX protocol terminology.
2. Many of the figures get fragmented at print. Now I know that it's
difficult to avoid this in a document with about 20 figures, and doing
.np before each figure would be quite a waste, but I suggest that at
least figure C which is a key architecture diagram be kept on one page.
Ok. I will take care of that.
Regards, Benoit.
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: The IESG [mailto:iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 4:46 PM
To: IETF-Announce
Cc: psamp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Last Call: draft-ietf-psamp-protocol (Packet Sampling (PSAMP)
Protocol Specifications) to Proposed Standard
The IESG has received a request from the Packet Sampling WG (psamp) to
consider the following document:
- 'Packet Sampling (PSAMP) Protocol Specifications '
<draft-ietf-psamp-protocol-08.txt> as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2007-11-05. Exceptionally, comments
may
be sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-psamp-protocol-08.txt
IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=
10963&rfc_flag=0
_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
_______________________________________________
PSAMP mailing list
PSAMP(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/psamp
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf