Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art telechat review of draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability-09

[Elwyn Davies <[e-mail]>]

Hi.

I had a look at the revised diff.  Looks pretty good now.

Couple of minor points in line below.

Cheers,
Elwyn

On 11/05/2016 16:18, Joe Clarke wrote:
> On 5/10/16 17:51, Elwyn Davies wrote:
>> s1, para 2: s/describes use cases/describe use cases/
>
> Fixed.
>
>>
>> s5.2, Event ID:
>>> An event can be a Client authenticating with the Agent, a Client to
>>> Agent operation, or a Client disconnecting from an Agent.
>> This is a good thing, but I am not sure that the format provides a way
>> to identify the authentication and disconnection events.
>
> The intent was that these would be Operations (i.e., AUTHENTICATE 
> CLIENT, DISCONNECT CLIENT).  There is nothing in the text that 
> precludes this.  We can explicitly state this.
I think stating it explicitly would be a good idea.
>
>
>>
>> s5.2, Starting Timestamp:
>> [I don't understand 'three points of prevision'.] Maybe...
>> OLD:
>> Given that many I2RS operations can occur in rapid succession, the use
>> of fractional seconds MUST be used to provide adequate granularity.
>> Fractional seconds SHOULD be expressed with at least three points of
>> prevision in second.microsecond format.
>> NEW:
>> Given that many I2RS operations can occur in rapid succession, the
>> fractional seconds element of the timestamp MUST be used to provide
>> adequate granularity.  Fractional seconds SHOULD be expressed with at
>> least three [or more?] significant digits in second.microsecond format.
>> END
>
> Changed.
Do you think millisecond resolution will be good enough?  I put in three 
because of the 'three points of prevision'   but wonder if you might 
need something closer to microsecond resolution in high throughput 
routers?  I don't know what might be desirable - I have some experience 
of a similar logging system (DTN2) and full microsecond resolution is 
occasionally useful.
>
>
>>
>> s5.2, Ending Timestamp:
>> See the comments on the Starting Timestamp - though I think you could
>> just refer to the words in the Starting Timestamp and avoid duplication.
>
> Done.
>
>>
>> s7.4/s7.4.3: Given that the I2RS pub-sub access method is
>> mandatory-to-implement, i think I-D.ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements has
>> to be a Normative Reference.
>
> Changed.
>
> See the new text at 
> https://www.marcuscom.com/draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability.txt-from-09-10.diff.html 
> .
>
> Thanks again for the review!
>
> Joe