Hi Suresh,
Thanks for taking the time to review the draft.
See inline.
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for
draft-ietf-psamp-protocol-08.txt
For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Summary: This draft is almost ready, but I have a couple of comments.
* I think section 3.1 should be removed and be replaced with a
reference to the IPFIX proto terminology section. Since it is copied
and pasted in here, it cannot pickup any changes to the IPFIX proto
document (say in AUTH48).
Ok. Let's remove the definitions in section 3.1
OLD:
The IPFIX terminology section has been entirely copied over from
[IPFIX-PROTO], except for the IPFIX Exporting Process term, which is
defined more precisely in the PSAMP terminology section.
NEW:
IPFIX-specific terminology used in this document is defined in section 2
of [IPFIX-PROTO]. The only exception is the IPFIX Exporting Process
term, which is defined more precisely in the PSAMP terminology section.
As in [IPFIX-PROTO], these IPFIX-specific terms have the first letter of
a word capitalized when used in this document.
* Similarly, the terminology from psamp-sample-tech is copied over and
is out of sync with the psamp-sample-tech-10 draft.
I cc'ed Tanja Zseby, as she is the editor of [PSAMP-TECH]
Ok. Let's remove the definitions in section 3.2
OLD:
The PSAMP terminology section has been copied over from [PSAMP-TECH].
NEW:
PSAMP-specific terminology used in this document is defined in section 3
of [PSAMP-TECH]. As in [PSAMP-TECH], these PSAMP-specific terms have
the first letter of a word capitalized when used in this document.
Now, I compared the terminology section in [PSAMP-PROTO] and
[PSAMP-TECH]. I see three categories
_Category 1: terms defined in [PSAMP-PROTO], but not defined in
[PSAMP-TECH], that we should define in [PSAMP-TECH]: _
Selector ID, Content-independent Sampling, Content-dependent Sampling.
Let's copy the definition from [PSAMP-PROTO] in [PSAMP-TECH]
_Category 2: terms with different definitions in [PSAMP-PROTO] and
[PSAMP-TECH]
_Packet Stream: [PSAMP-TECH] shoud use the [PSAMP-PROTO]. Was flagged on
the mailing list on 10/21/2006 by Paul Aitken
Packet Content: [PSAMP-TECH] should contain the update from Dan
Romanascu. See
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/psamp/current/msg00379.html
Filtering: [PSAMP-TECH] should keep its definition
Sampling: [PSAMP-TECH] should use the definition from [PSAMP-PROTO]
_Category 3: terms defined differently in both [PSAMP-TECH] and
[IPFIX-PROTO]_
Observation Point: [PSAMP-PROTO] should use the one from [IPFIX-PROTO].
[PSAMP-TECH] should use the same
Metering Process: [PSAMP-PROTO] should use the one from [PSAMP-TECH]
Exporting Process: [PSAMP-PROTO] should use the one from [PSAMP-TECH]
Collector: [PSAMP-PROTO] should use the one from [PSAMP-TECH]
Conclusion: if [PSAMP-TECH] copied over the Observation Point definition
from [IPFIX-PROTO], I could write in [PSAMP-PROTO]: "When conflicting
terminology exists between [IPFIX-PROTO] and [PSAMP-TECH], the
definitions in [PSAMP-TECH] take precedence. This applies for example to
the Metering Process, the Exporting Process, and the Collector"
* If conflicting terminology exists in IPFIX and PSAMP-TECH, it is not
clear which one takes precedence. This is probably worth stating.
See my last sentence
* In Section 6.4.1 the IPFIX Template Record ascii art spans pages. Is
it possible to insert a page break before this so that it appears in
one page.
Ok.
Please let me know what you think of the proposed changes.
I'm still waiting for the reviews from the transport area directors, and
I'll publish a new version of the draft.
Regards, Benoit.
Cheers
Suresh
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
