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

[Elwyn Davies <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Joe.

I checked through the changes in -11 and that all looks good now.

Thanks,
Elwyn

On 13/05/2016 21:43, Elwyn Davies wrote:
> Hi, Joe.
>
> Thanks for the heads up.
>
> Apologies - I missed one question that I should have asked.  You have 
> removed the idea that the specified fields are mandatory in s5.2.  My 
> original issue with this was about whether you would envisage that 
> implementors could add additional, optional fields to the basic set, 
> and if so would it be good to mention/explain how this would be handled.
>
> The current state gives a rigid set of fields in  each trace report 
> with no flexibility  (or at least not within the specification).  Is 
> this what the authors intended?
>
> Cheers,
> Elwyn
>
> On 13/05/2016 16:36, Joe Clarke wrote:
>> On 5/11/16 15:11, Elwyn Davies wrote:
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> I had a look at the revised diff.  Looks pretty good now.
>>>
>>> Couple of minor points in line below.
>>
>> Thanks, Elwyn.  We have posted rev -10 of the draft, which should 
>> address all of your comments.
>>
>> Joe
>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
>