Re: [tsvwg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-prpolicies-06: (with COMMENT)
Michael Tuexen <tuexen@fh-muenster.de> Thu, 05 February 2015 16:25 UTC
Return-Path: <tuexen@fh-muenster.de>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 548151A89A8; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 08:25:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.551
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 A_wgFEfkmKjB; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 08:25:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-n.franken.de (drew.ipv6.franken.de [IPv6:2001:638:a02:a001:20e:cff:fe4a:feaa]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B09B1A88DD; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 08:25:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.200] (p548186AC.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.129.134.172]) (Authenticated sender: macmic) by mail-n.franken.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41E631C104347; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 17:25:46 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\))
From: Michael Tuexen <tuexen@fh-muenster.de>
In-Reply-To: <9096E5DA-E436-4B11-AAAA-227C3093F03A@trammell.ch>
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 17:25:45 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9631FEEF-AA38-450D-872E-A052AF8B845F@fh-muenster.de>
References: <20150203170508.11385.61826.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <1C46E522-C9C9-43E0-A983-2209EAD3FCBF@fh-muenster.de> <238AE350-879D-4D0C-AEBC-446AD09826FA@trammell.ch> <6B7C29E8-35D6-452F-A2DF-37FEAA57BB09@fh-muenster.de> <1981A00D-BFC6-4A2C-B6CD-0A7077773BB5@trammell.ch> <6F5E21F1-CE5D-4EBE-9B7B-D3034C77FBBD@fh-muenster.de> <54D225FA.7020602@cisco.com> <7F87F98F-B25B-4E2F-B47A-4654ABC56000@fh-muenster.de> <9096E5DA-E436-4B11-AAAA-227C3093F03A@trammell.ch>
To: Brian Trammell <ietf@trammell.ch>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/4zGfckHE2BZAFmBDz--Ajg1WL4k>
Cc: "Romascanu@ietfa.amsl.com" <Romascanu@ietfa.amsl.com>, Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, "draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-prpolicies.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-prpolicies.all@tools.ietf.org>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>, Dan Romascanu <dromasca@avaya.com>, "tsvwg-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <tsvwg-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-prpolicies-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 16:25:52 -0000
> On 05 Feb 2015, at 10:22, Brian Trammell <ietf@trammell.ch> wrote: > > hi Michael, > > This is good, though I'd tweak it slightly... > >>> In case of IPFIX, you want to have different flow records per stream, and you want to flag those streams as fully reliable/partially reliable/unreliable (I know it's not totally correct, as the reliability is flagged per message, as opposed to streams, in SCTP, but anyway) >>> Typically, you want a billing flow-record sent fully reliably, security-related and monitoring flow-records sent partially-reliably. Now, if you consider the security-related slightly more important than the monitoring ones, the exporting process might flag the security-related flow records with a higher priority than the monitoring ones, according to this spec. >>> >>> You might have to introduce an example around this text above. >> What about writing: >> >> <t>The IPFIX protocol stack (see <xref target='RFC7011'/>) is an example >> of where the Priority Policy can be used. Billing flow-records would be sent > > ... Template records would be sent with full reliability, while billing, security-related, and other monitoring flow records would be sent using the Priority policy with varying priority. The priority of security-related flow records... Thanks a lot, text taken. Best regards Michael > > (The only thing the protocol specifies with respect to PR usage is that templates MUST be reliably, otherwise things break badly; it turns out that in a lot of applications billing records are relatively low priority, because you can lose a lot of them before it actually changes who pays what.) > >> with full reliability whereas security related flow-records and monitoring >> flow-records would be sent using the Priority Policy. The priority of >> security related flow-records would be chosen higher than the the priority >> of monitoring flow records.</t> > >> I also added the sentence >> >> User messages sent reliable are considered having a priority higher than >> all messages sent with the Priority Policy. >> >> to make clear that sending a reliable message might result in abandoning messages >> send with Priority policy, no matter what the provided priority is. > > Yep, that's good. (I had assumed this is the case, but making it explicit is better). > > Cheers, > > Brian > >>> I believe that you now understand the background of my first question in my initial COMMENT, for which I had RFC 6526 in mind: >>> 1. >>> Using the Priority Policy allows the sender of a user message to >>> specify a priority. When storing a user message in the send buffer >>> while there is not enough available space, the SCTP stack at the >>> sender side MAY abandon other user messages of the same SCTP >>> association with a priority lower than the provided one. >>> >>> >>>> From the same SCTP association or the same stream within the SCTP? >>>> >>> Being specific might be usefull: there are no limitations per stream. >>> NEW: >>> Using the Priority Policy allows the sender of a user message to >>> specify a priority. When storing a user message in the send buffer >>> while there is not enough available space, the SCTP stack at the >>> sender side MAY abandon other user messages of the same SCTP >>> association (with the same or a different stream) with a priority >>> lower than the provided one. >> Text taken. >> >> Best regards >> Michael >>> >>> Regards, Benoit >>>> >>>> Best regards >>>> Michael >>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Brian >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Currently this is left implementation specific. So if choosing from the same stream is important, >>>>>> we might want to add a sentence saying this. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for jumping in... >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards >>>>>> Michael >>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Brian >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best regards >>>>>>>> Michael >>>>>>>> >>>> . > >
- [tsvwg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-iet… Benoit Claise
- Re: [tsvwg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft… Michael Tuexen
- Re: [tsvwg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft… Brian Trammell
- Re: [tsvwg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft… Michael Tuexen
- Re: [tsvwg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft… Brian Trammell
- Re: [tsvwg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft… Michael Tuexen
- Re: [tsvwg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft… Benoit Claise
- Re: [tsvwg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft… Benoit Claise
- Re: [tsvwg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft… Michael Tuexen
- Re: [tsvwg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft… Brian Trammell
- Re: [tsvwg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft… Benoit Claise
- Re: [tsvwg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft… Michael Tuexen
- Re: [tsvwg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft… Michael Tuexen