[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: WG last call on Sampling and Filtering Techniques until March 12
RFC 2119 suggest using the following paragraph:
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
RFC 2119.
As you see, 'RECOMMENDED' is well defined and equivalent to 'SHOULD'.
Juergen
--On 23.02.2005 12:14 Uhr +0100 Tanja Zseby wrote:
Hi Maurizio,
as far as I know a SHOULD in the draft means that it is recommended. So
having a SHOULD there is o.k. with me.
So we state that if someone decides to use a hash-based selection he
SHOULD use the [to be agreed on ] function .
Regards
Tanja
Maurizio Molina wrote:
Hi Tanja,
"recommended" is a rather vague term.
In my view, it should be made clear that in case someone implements
the hash based filtering, he MUST (or SHOULD) implement the
recommended hash function. Otherwise, the whole concept of trajectory
sampling, which is one of the main reason for having hash based
sampling, is broken.
From the discussion I saw on the ML I think a consensus on a MUST is
probably difficult to reach, but at least a SHOULD should be in.
Maurizio
Tanja Zseby wrote:
Hi Juergen,
just a small comment: we agreed that it is mandatory to implement one
of the described selection methods to be psamp-conformant. Regarding
the hash-function we just give recommendations if someone decided to
implement a hash-based selection. So to my understanding we will not
have one hash-function mandatory but only recommended. Do you agree ?
Regards
Tanja
Juergen Quittek wrote:
Dear all,
Tanja has submitted a new version of our document on Sampling and
Filtering Techniques for IP Packet Selection. Please find it at
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-psamp-sample-tech-06.txt>.
The document in mature enough for entering WG last call.
The call will end on March 12. This allows us bringing up and
discussing comments and issues also at our session in Minneapolis.
Please read the document carefully and comment on it.
PLEASE ALSO COMMENT IF YOU THINK THE DOCUMENT IS FINE.
Positive feedback is as welcome as comment on technical flaws and
editorial nits.
There is one open technical issue left that we should continue
discussing and try to close during last call. The document
describes the need to support hash functions for packet selection
and for packet digest. We agreed already, that for each of them one
hash function should be mandatory to implement. Currently it is
IPSX for packet selection and CRC32 for packet digest.
However, a discussion recently started on this list considered
replacing both (as mandatory to implement) by the BOB hash function.
We have not reached consensus on this issue.
Thanks,
Juergen
--
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
Fraunhofer Institute FOKUS Email: zseby@fokus.fraunhofer.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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
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/>