Re: Proposal for PSAMP-PROTO section 6.5.2.6

Andrew Johnson <andrjohn@cisco.com> Fri, 24 March 2006 01:39 UTC

Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FMbHD-0001R9-49 for psamp-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Mar 2006 20:39:43 -0500
Received: from stsc1260-eth-s1-s1p1-vip.va.neustar.com ([156.154.16.129] helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FMa7A-0001eZ-8Q for psamp-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Mar 2006 19:25:16 -0500
Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FMZsG-0008Ri-0b for psamp-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Mar 2006 19:09:53 -0500
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-psamp@ops.ietf.org>) id 1FMZnb-0004dn-Os for psamp-data@psg.com; Fri, 24 Mar 2006 00:05:03 +0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on psg.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.1.0
Received: from [144.254.224.140] (helo=ams-iport-1.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <andrjohn@cisco.com>) id 1FMZna-0004cg-SS for psamp@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Mar 2006 00:05:03 +0000
Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.150]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Mar 2006 01:05:02 +0100
Received: from cisco.com (mrwint.cisco.com [64.103.71.48]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k2O05136019590 for <psamp@ops.ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Mar 2006 01:05:01 +0100 (MET)
Received: from [10.89.16.19] (rcdn-vpn-cluster-1-19.cisco.com [10.89.16.19]) by cisco.com (8.8.8-Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA08852; Fri, 24 Mar 2006 00:05:00 GMT
Message-ID: <442337AB.1080706@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 00:04:59 +0000
From: Andrew Johnson <andrjohn@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andrew Johnson <andrjohn@cisco.com>
CC: psamp <psamp@ops.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Proposal for PSAMP-PROTO section 6.5.2.6
References: <4408A761.5070707@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4408A761.5070707@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-psamp@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--)
X-Scan-Signature: 21c69d3cfc2dd19218717dbe1d974352

Hi all

There is a contradiction in the proposed text that I would like to
correct.

Andrew Johnson wrote:
[SNIP]
> 6.5.2.6 Hash-Based Filtering
> 
[SNIP]
> For the bytes taken from the IP payload, IPSX has a fixed offset
> of 0 bytes and a fixed size of 8 bytes.  The number and offset of
> payload bytes in the BOB function MUST be configurable.  If any
> of the configured set of bytes from the IP payload are unavailable
> then 0 MUST be used, which may result in a different value than
> if the hash function is run on a subset of the input.

Here, for a hash function with a variable length input, it says that
you must pass in 0 for the missing bytes.  This disagrees with the
text below and I would like to simply remove the last sentence.


> The minimum configuration ranges MUST be as follows:
>  Number of bytes:  from 8 to 32
>  Offset:           from 0 to 64
> 
> If the selected payload bytes are not available and the hash function
> can take a variable sized input then the hash function MUST be run
> with the information which is available and a shorter size.  Passing
> 0 as a substitute for missing payload bytes is only acceptable if
> the hash function takes a fixed size as is the case with IPSX.

The above text is quite clear, and contrary to the previous original
paragraph.


regards

Andrew

--
to unsubscribe send a message to psamp-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/psamp/>