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

[Joe Clarke <[e-mail]>]

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
>