Re: PROTO-19: The timestamp should be reported to microsecond resolution

[Juergen Quittek <quittek@netlab.nec.de>]

Paul and Benoit,

I see no problem with creating "flow-independent" time stamps.

However, I would also be fine with the other alternative
of using the flow start elements.

Thanks,

   Juergen

--On 3/2/06 11:22 PM +0000 Paul Aitken wrote:

> Benoit,
>
> > can we reuse the flowStartMicroSeconds Information Element?
> > Or (if you are a purist), the "flow" prefix is confusing in a PSAMP
> > implementation?
> > Please provide your feedback.
>
>  From the purist perspective, I would prefer to create the new timestamp elements you list. They're more appropriate than flowStart... and may be of use in other ways in future.
>
> > If the latter, then we must define a new Information Element for the
> > microsecond precision. And, while doing that, we should define the
> > other precision at the same time: second, millisecond, and nanosecond.
>
> Agreed.
>
> --
> Paul Aitken
> Cisco Systems Ltd, Edinburgh, Scotland.
>
> --
> 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/>