Subject: [PSAMP] FW: Last Call: draft-ietf-psamp-sample-tech (Sampling and Filtering Techniques for IP Packet Selection) to Proposed Standard

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 16:59:53 +0100

Please find below my technical and editorial comments: 

Technical

1. Section 3.1 - Packet Content. The definition includes in the packet
header the link layer header. This deserves at least a note, which
should draw the attention on the fact that some if the Observation Point
is located at the interface of an IP router the link header information
may not be available. 

2. Taking into account the observation at the previous point, why do
filters defined in section 6.1 for property match operations refer only
to the IP header and do not cover also the sub-IP header? 

3. The Security Consideration section should be explicit about the need
for confidentiality of the sampling configuration information and
authentication of the entities that configure this information. Even if
the methods of configuration are out of the scope of this document,
mentioning the basic security expectations for the configuration
information will help for selecting the appropriate tools and protocols
for this purpose.

4. This being a document that targets Proposed Standard it looks strange
that the other PSAMP and IPFIX documents are only mentioned as
Informational references. The document reuses terminology and refers to
the architecture described in PSAMP-FW and I would expect that at list
this be considered essential for the understanding of this document. 

Editorial

1. It would be useful for the Abstract and/or title to mention that this
document is part of the PSAMP family of documents. This helps people
searching in the RFC index in the future to identify easier the document
and where it belongs. 

2. The document is using a capitalization convention where all terms
defined or mentioned in Section 3 are being written capitalized. This
includes quite common and often used terms like Sampling. In order to
avoid comments about this capitalization style I suggest to explain this
convention in the terminology section. It may also be useful to make
this capitalization consistent with other PSAMP document, for example
Flow is capitalized in draft-psamp-proto, but not here 

3. In the table in Section 4 - need to explain what x and (x) mean

4. the list of filters for the Selection Process in Section 6.1, page
18-19 what do (iv) and (v) mean? Are these packets that failed Ingress
filtering as per RFC2827 (iv) and packets that were detected as out of
spec for (v)? Making this clear would help

Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: The IESG [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 4:47 PM
To: IETF-Announce
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Last Call: draft-ietf-psamp-sample-tech (Sampling and Filtering
Techniques for IP Packet Selection) to Proposed Standard 

The IESG has received a request from the Packet Sampling WG (psamp) to
consider the following document:

- 'Sampling and Filtering Techniques for IP Packet Selection '
   <draft-ietf-psamp-sample-tech-10.txt> as a Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action.  Please send substantive comments to the
[email-masked] mailing lists by 2007-11-05. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

_______________________________________________
PSAMP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/psamp