Subject: RE: PSAMP meeting and future work

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 13:37:51 -0400

Juergen,

I see three outstanding issues on the framework and sampling drafts.
Items 1 and 2 below can probably be resolved offline, although 3 could
benefit from discussion at the ietf.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf
> Of Juergen Quittek
> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 12:19 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: PSAMP meeting and future work
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> I requested a slot for a PSAMP meeting in Paris, but I have doubts
> that we have sufficient discussion items for the meeting.
> 
> I am very happy, that we completed the work on Sampling and Filtering
> Techniques for IP Packet Selection.  I will forward this I-D to our
> area directors and the IESG in the next days.  With this step we
> completed most of the work that we could do independently of IPFIX.

1. There are some minor harmonization and updates done between the
framework and the recent version of the sampling draft. 

2. The status of intellectual property (if any) for the Bob hash
function needs to be clarified. 

3. On the sampling draft: although there has been some work behind the
scenes on this, there are still some uncertainties about input for the
IPv6 hash. It could be useful to talk about this, and try to get some
input from ietf attendees with domain knowledge.

Nick

> 
> Also the IPFIX WG achieved a major milestone.  All WG documents
> are complete and will be forwarded to area directors and IESG next
week.
> Based on these documents we can now start specifying the PSAMP
protocol
> as an application/extension of the IPFIX protocol and the PSAMP info
model
> as an extension of the IPFIX info model.
> Both documents will probably be much shorter than the corresponding
> IPFIX documents, but still they require a significant amount of work.
> 
> Finally, the PSAMP MIB, which is already in a very mature state,
> needs to be adapted to the protocol and the info model.
> 
> In conclusion I see work ahead, and certainly also discussions on the
> protocol and info model, but there are no documents available, that
> could serve as basis for a discussion in Paris.
> 
> If you still feel, we should have the meeting in Paris, then please
> reply until the deadline for Internet draft submissions on Monday,
July
> 18.
> If no one comes up with a good reason for having the meeting I will
> cancel it.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
>     Juergen
> --
> Juergen Quittek        [email-masked]       Tel: +49 6221
90511-15
> NEC Europe Ltd.,       Network Laboratories        Fax: +49 6221
90511-55
> Kurfuersten-Anlage 36, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany
> http://www.netlab.nec.de
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/psamp/>

---

From: Juergen Quittek <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 17:52:27 +0200

Dear all,

Nick submitted three issues that could be discussion items at the
PSAMP session in Paris.

Nick, thank you for this and please find comments inline below.

However, I came to the conclusion that neither of the three issues
listed below does justify having a PSAMP session in Paris.
Therefore I cancel the session.

As said in my previous message, I do expect that we will have a PSAMP
session at the next IETF meeting.  Work on the PSAMP protocol and
information model can start right now and I am optimistic that we will
have our final discussion on them at the meeting in Vancouver.

Thanks,

    Juergen
-- 
Juergen Quittek        [email-masked]       Tel: +49 6221 90511-15
NEC Europe Ltd.,       Network Laboratories        Fax: +49 6221 90511-55
Kurfuersten-Anlage 36, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany   http://www.netlab.nec.de

> framework and the recent version of the sampling draft.

It is very unlikely, that we get the drafts back from IESG review without any
request for minor changes.  And even if not, there will be time to fix minor
editorial and harmonization issues after the IESG review.

Can someone please list the items that need to be harmonized?

> function needs to be clarified.

This issues has be cleared.
The Bob hash function does not make use of protected IPR.

> input from ietf attendees with domain knowledge.

First, this issue should be brought to the mailing list.

I think it should be solved by consulting experts directly.
It is not a good approach to schedule a meeting that can only be successful
if by chance some experts with special expertise (that is not directly related
to PSAMP) will show up.