[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
some more comments on draft-ietf-psamp-sample-tech-05.txt
- To: psamp <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: some more comments on draft-ietf-psamp-sample-tech-05.txt
- From: Benoit Claise <email@example.com>
- Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 21:28:36 +0100
- User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)
In order to produce the next version of the PSAMP MIB, I've reviewed the
"sampling and filtering techniques for IP packet selection" draft...
this time with a PSAMP MIB hat. I still have a few comments on the draft.
1. section 2 "PSAMP Documents Overview"
[PSAMP-MIB] "Definitions of Managed Objects for Packet Sampling"
describes the PSAMP management Information Base.
I see that the current MIB description use the same definition. However,
the MIB specifications go well beyond sampling... there is also
filtering and hashing!
What about "definitions of managed objects for sampling and filtering
techniques for IP packet selection"?
- the draft "A Framework for Packet Selection and Reporting" should
be changed accordingly
- the MIB definition should be changed accordingly
2. "Packet Content" definition
[IPFIX-REQUIRE] -> [IPFIX-REQ]
3. If I recall correctly, the following terms have been changed in the
latest "A Framework for Packet Selection and Reporting" (at least I
recall some discussions on the mailing list): population size, sample
size, configured selection fraction, attained selection fraction
4. Table in section 4
Change "Filter" to "Filtering" in the category column
Same section, change "cascade of a filter and a Sampling scheme" to
"cascade of Filtering and Sampling schemes"
5. Section 184.108.40.206
Still non-ascii characters with "sample and hold" and "local export"
6. Section 220.127.116.11
"In the former case determines pseudorandom variates rather than
selection probabilities" ??
7. Section 6.3 "Router State Filtering"
Remove the OR.
8. Section 7
"In order to be compliant with PSAMP, it is sufficient to implement one
of the proposed schemes".
As far as I recall, this will be a standard track document, so it should
be written in a more formal way.
"In order to be compliant with PSAMP, one least of the proposed scheme
MUST be implemented"
9. section 7.1
SELECTOR_ID: ... the ID can be calculated under consideration of the
ASSOCIATIONS and a local ID.
What does the "under consideration" mean?
10. section 7.1
case non-uniform probabilistic and case flow state both refer to section
However, both the method descriptions and the 18.104.22.168 section don't
clearly explain which SELECTOR_PARAMETERS we need
11. section 7.1
"The ASSOCIATIONS field describes the Observation Point and (possibly)
the IPFIX processes"
Possibly -> optionally without parentheses.
Note: the MIB should take care that these parameters are optional.
Proposal: a value of 0 means unspecified?
12. section 7.1
Case Matching -> this is not too clear that these are pairs of (field,
value). And that in case of multiple match criteria, we have several
"case matching" bound by a logical AND.
BTW, IPFIX speaks of information element and not field, so I guess it
should be a (information element, value) pair.
13. section 7.1
case hashing -> this is not too clear how the parameters in there match
the definitions of hash domain, hash range, hash selection range,
hash-based selection, etc... BTW I have the same problem with the MIB
definitions (which obviously match these definitions)
14. section 7.1
"all router state entries can be linked by AND, OR, NOT operators" ->to
be limited by AND
15. there are still a lot of capitalized terms before definition. The
list is too long is to described in an email.
Either use the find function, either call me as I marked them down on
the paper draft I reviewed.
to unsubscribe send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.