Re: psamp-info: transport/udp/tcpPayloadPacketSection

[Andrew Johnson <andrjohn@cisco.com>]

Gerhard Muenz wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> In the psamp-info draft, there is an IE for IP payload, L2 payload and 
> MPLS payload.
> Are there any reasons for not having a similar IE for transport layer 
> payload, e.g. udp|tcpPayloadPacketSection or a generic 
> transportPayloadPacketSection?

A generic transport payload IE is not feasible because to implement
properly an implementation would have to understand and parse all
transport protocols, including ones which are yet to be defined.

At this time, it is expected that the IP payload type will be sufficient
because correct interpretation of the transport payload will most likely
require much of the information from the transport header, and the IP
payload IE will provide both.

If you, or anyone, has an application that would require that PSAMP be
extended in some way then please mail the list details of the application
and we can discuss the best way to address the requirements, possibly
requesting new IEs as needed.  Don't forget, however, that new IEs can
be requested at any time in the future, so we don't have to cover all
cases right now.


regards

Andrew

--
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/>