Re: Open Issue 6: Associations ID -> Selection Path

[Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>]

Juergen,
> Benoit and Tanja,
>
> It is good to rename the AssociationID.
>
> Would you mind using "selection sequence" or something
> equivalent) instead of "selection path"'?
Because it contains both the observation point and the selector id(s), 
"selection path" was selected.
"selection sequence" tends to say it's only composed of selector id(s).
However, if there is no confusion, this terminology becomes a point of 
detail.

In conclusion: I will change the "Selection Path" to "Selection 
Sequence", unless someone objects.

Regards, Benoit.
> We have work on path-coupled packet selection (presented
> last session) and trajectory sampling along a path.
> Therefore, I am afraid that "selection path" might be
> confusing.
>
> Thanks,
>
>    Juergen
>
> --On 2/27/06 12:59 PM +0100 Tanja Zseby wrote:
>
> > Hi Benoit,
> >
> > I will modify it in the PSAMP-TECH draft.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tanja
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Benoit Claise [mailto:bclaise@cisco.com]
> > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 12:44 PM
> > To: Tanja Zseby
> > Cc: Benoit Claise; psamp
> > Subject: Re: Open Issue 6: Associations ID -> Selection Path
> >
> > Tanja,
> >
> > Will you modify the Associations ID into Selection Path in the next
> > [PSAMP-TECH] version?
> > Or should I add a short sentence in [PSAMP-PROTO]: "the Selection Path
> > is referred to as the Associations ID in [PSAMP-TECH]"
> > My personal choice, in order to avoid any confusion, would go for the
> > [PSAMP-TECH] modification.
> >
> > Regards, Benoit.
> > > Ok, I made the modifications for the new draft that I will be posting
> > > soon.
> > >
> > > Regards, Benoit.
> > > > Hi Benoit,
> > > >
> > > > I also prefer Selection Path.
> > > >
> > > > Kind regards,
> > > > Tanja
> > > >
> > > > Benoit Claise wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Dear all,
> > > > >
> > > > > The PSAMP open issue 6 is the following:
> > > > >
> > > > >    Even if the notion of Associations ID is mentioned in
> > [PSAMP-TECH],
> > > > >    maybe a term such as SelectionPath or PathID would be more
> > > > > appropriate.
> > > > >
> > > > > The background of this issue is the following.
> > > > > [PSAMP-TECH] specifies the Associations ID like this:
> > > > >
> > > > >    ASSOCIATIONS        Values: <STREAM ID, IPFIX Metering process
> > > > > ID, IPFIX Exporting    process ID, IDs of other associated
> > > > > processes>    With STREAM ID: Observation point ID AND List of
> > > > > SELECTOR_IDs
> > > > > However, we concluded during the last IETF meeting that we don't
> > > > > need the IPFIX Metering and Exporting Process ID.
> > > > > So we're left with:
> > > > >
> > > > >    Values: <Observation point ID, List of SELECTOR_IDs>
> > > > >
> > > > > Since we don't associate anymore the observation point with
> > > > > processes, it was proposed to change the name:
> > > > > from "Associations ID" to "Selection Path" or "Path ID".
> > > > >
> > > > > Personally, I prefer the Selection Path term, along with the
> > > > > selectionPath I.E.
> > > > > For the simple reason that we speak of selection methods all over in
> >
> > > > > the PSAMP drafts.
> > > > >
> > > > > Feedback?
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards, Benoit.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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/>
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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/>


--
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/>