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

Joe Clarke <jclarke@cisco.com> Fri, 13 May 2016 15:36 UTC

Return-Path: <jclarke@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEE9212D589; Fri, 13 May 2016 08:36:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.517
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.517 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EPkcuSTvnMkn; Fri, 13 May 2016 08:36:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0426212D599; Fri, 13 May 2016 08:36:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2688; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1463153767; x=1464363367; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=EbIYLqAihDvySMooEjSee7T44FCW/uEPxNhzmovjVBg=; b=O1KxBy4CTzNx0lnYnJ+e+OGHbgLThW1ecAJlxBN6i19rTQM/8GKSbjW7 18rUClI1X2iCVqV/VLYTfvzRMQ+iGzmPh74X5Q+CXSIaaC8utZGUTQX8e WKIDQhvjJ9STzVh5RJWKTkwDQClD5J+aUCFQFO4DUIdkMVW9uC190kGWF E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BSBgB+8zVX/4YNJK1UCoM3VStTuWSBdiSFbQKBLDoSAQEBAQEBAWUnhEIBAQEDASMVQRALGAICJgICVwYBDAgBAYgjCA6wB5B/AQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEYBYEBhSSBdgiCT4QXgyiCWQEEmCeOHok/hVqPQScBOoQIIDIBAQGIVwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,614,1454976000"; d="scan'208";a="106897676"
Received: from alln-core-12.cisco.com ([173.36.13.134]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 13 May 2016 15:36:07 +0000
Received: from [10.118.87.83] (rtp-jclarke-nitro2.cisco.com [10.118.87.83]) by alln-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u4DFa6KU025058; Fri, 13 May 2016 15:36:06 GMT
To: Elwyn Davies <elwynd@dial.pipex.com>, General area reviewing team <gen-art@ietf.org>
References: <572B4D51.10003@dial.pipex.com> <e8a0bf59-f1ea-3710-9b3b-2820ea1ef64b@cisco.com> <d8db28ea-3560-ecd5-d4a4-4a8070b07af7@dial.pipex.com> <f3b683af-7903-639d-b857-8780c49cd35c@cisco.com> <e874f9d3-024f-54da-1f65-f12b1ebd7c22@dial.pipex.com>
From: Joe Clarke <jclarke@cisco.com>
Organization: Cisco Systems, Inc.
Message-ID: <7aaa1caa-f6df-0311-9e11-96a847efe625@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 11:36:06 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <e874f9d3-024f-54da-1f65-f12b1ebd7c22@dial.pipex.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/qiYFP0nYtLvUTioUkxASRjSchJU>
Cc: draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability.all@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art telechat review of draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability-09
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 15:36:20 -0000

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
>