[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: draft on sampling techniques

Hi Andy and Jürgen,

I am currently working together with Maurizio on a new verison of the psamp draft. We want to include information models for filtering and sampling. I guess it would be o.k. to submit this new version as 00 version of the WG draft ?


Andy Bierman wrote:">
Hi Tanja,

There have been no objections to the proposal to use your draft on
Sampling Techniques as the baseline for the WG draft. Please submit
this draft for publication with the name:


At 11:37 AM 8/27/2002 +0200, Tanja Zseby wrote:
Dear psamp people,

I started a draft on sampling techniques for packet selection (document is attached). The document tries to define some terminology and describes various sampling methods and their parameters.
If you have any comments or if you like to contribute some text please let me know.
I know that there were once some volunteers for writing psamp documents. Are there people already working on other documents than the framework draft ?
This draft is getting a lot of positive responses.
Here is a snippet from the charter describing this deliverable:

1. Selectors for packet sampling. Define the set of primitive
packet selection operations for network elements, the parameters
by which they may be configured, and the ways in which they can be combined.

2. Packet Information. Specify extent of packet that is to be made
available for reporting. Target for inclusion the packet's IP header,
some subsequent bytes of the packet, and encapsulating headers if present.
Full packet capture of arbitrary packet streams is explicitly out of scope.
Specify variants for IPv4 and IPv6, extent of IP packet available under
encapsulation methods, and under packet encryption.

The charter says these two items will be combined in 1 draft.
So I have 3 questions for you and the WG:
1) Should these topics really be combined into 1 draft? If so,
would you be willing to take on the Packet Information topic
as part of your draft?
2) Should this document be a standards track or informational RFC?
If standards track, it is hard to pick out the normative text
in your draft.
3) Are there any objections to using this draft as the baseline
version of this WG deliverable? If no objections are made to
the WG mailing list by 5PM EDT, 9/12/2002, then I will ask Tanja
to submit this draft as a product of the PSAMP WG. If anyone
is interesting in submitting an alternative proposal to the WG,
they should submit a first draft by this deadline.

Kind  regards

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/>

Dipl.-Ing. Tanja Zseby			    	      	
FhI FOKUS/Global Networking			Email: zseby@fokus.fhg.de	
Kaiserin-Augusta-Allee 31				Phone: +49-30-3463-7153
D-10589 Berlin, Germany				Fax:   +49-30-3463-8153
"Living on earth is expensive but it includes a free trip around the sun." (Anonymous)