[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: packet selection: open issues
Tanja Zseby wrote:
here are the remaining open issues for the packet selection (PS)
draft. Please comment on them until December 5.
PS-1: Configuration of non-uniform probabilistic and flow-state
sampling: should we specify some functions exemplarily ?
Problem: For both methods theoretical proposals exist in research, but
they are not yet mature. Furthermore the paramters for the schemes
differ for different proposed methods. So we can not define parameters
for the general scheme. Only give exemplarily parameters for specific
schemes (e.g. sample and hold). But this may also lead to the
interpretation that psamp prefers certain methods.
Proposed Solution: Only define the method and leaf the specification
of explicite schemes (and parametes) up to vendors (e.g. as extension
of the info model)
PS-2: Terminology: approximate selection
Problem: Should hash based sampling be described as "Random sampling
emulation" or as "random sampling approximation" or is there a better
term for this ?
Proposed Solution: find a better term
PS-3: Operating time
Problem: The start and stop time of the sampling process is currently
part of the Info Model. But the start of a new scheme could be also
configured by the application by simply installing a new scheme.
Proposed solution: remove it from info model
PS-4: Integration of hash-functions:
Problem: Should some selected hash functions (from the hash-function
draft) become part of the PS draft ?
Proposed Solution: select 2-3 functions and put description into PS draft
My opinion is that the detailed description of some hash functions
should be part of the PS draft, otherwise we risk to leave it to vague
and do not clarify how coherent packet selection at multiple points can
On the other hand, Andy expressed the concern during last meeting that
there is no established consensus on the fact that the hash functions
that we can put in there now ( those of
are really the best ones for doing the job. And I share it, even being a
co-author of the draft.
So, is there a way out of it, in which we can put a formal hash
descriprion now in the PS draft but leave it open to the insertion of
other functions in the future?
to unsubscribe send a message to email@example.com with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.