|
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. OLDHere 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. 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.
Changing the section " 6.4.1 Basic Packet Report "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. 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Note: this was done to be inline with IPFIX information model draft: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. 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]. OLDEditorial 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. 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.
Ok. I will take care of that.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. Regards, Benoit. Dan -----Original Message----- From: The IESG [mailto:iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx] Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 4:46 PM To: IETF-Announce Cc: psamp@xxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2007-11-05. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce _______________________________________________ PSAMP mailing list PSAMP@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/psamp |
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf