--On 3/3/06 1:20 AM +0100 Benoit Claise wrote:
Dear all,
PROTO-108 Have a statement that this protocol specification
meets all requirements for the PSAMP protocol stated in the framework
except ... An then have a list of bullets, where at minimum there is
stated "not yet covered" or a longer explanation why it is not
covered. This would be replacement for the long list of requirements
in section 6.1
The section 6.1 was created as an intermediate step while
producing the full PSAMP specifications.
Therefore, there is no point anymore to explain, next to
each [PSAMP-FMWK] requirements, how IPFIX/PSAMP fulfills
it... as all is specified in details in the other sections
of the draft.
The section 6.1 should be removed and the following text
proposal should be added at the end of section 6
The PSAMP protocol specifications meets all the protocol
requirements stated in the PSAMP framework document
[PSAMP-FMWK]:
* Extensibility
* Parallel measurement processes
* Encrypted packets
* Indication of information loss
* Accuracy
* Privacy
* Timeliness
* Congestion avoidance
* Secure export:
* Export rate limit
* Microsecond timestamp resolution
With the choice of IPFIX as PSAMP export protocol, the
compression option mentioned in the framework document
[PSAMP-FMWK] is not addressed.
This is much better than the current text.
However, it sounds a bit strange to say "meets all"
in the first line and "not addressed". What about
replacing in the first line "all" with "almost all"
and mentioning the exception in the last paragraph:
"The only requirements that is not met is export packet
compression. With the choice of IPFIX as PSAMP export protocol,
the export packet compression option mentioned in the section
8.5 of the framework document [PSAMP-FMWK] is not addressed."
If you object, please let me know.
Regards, Benoit.
Thanks,
Juergen