Last Call Review of draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability-08
review-ietf-i2rs-traceability-08-genart-lc-davies-2016-05-05-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 11) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2016-04-29 | |
Requested | 2016-04-27 | |
Authors | Joe Clarke , Gonzalo Salgueiro , Carlos Pignataro | |
I-D last updated | 2016-05-05 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -09
by Elwyn B. Davies
(diff)
Genart Last Call review of -08 by Elwyn B. Davies (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Watson Ladd (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -08 by Menachem Dodge (diff) Rtgdir Early review of -06 by Mach Chen (diff) Rtgdir Early review of -06 by Les Ginsberg (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Elwyn B. Davies |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 08 (document currently at 11) | |
Result | Ready | |
Completed | 2016-05-05 |
review-ietf-i2rs-traceability-08-genart-lc-davies-2016-05-05-00
Hi. I had a look at the revised diff. Looks pretty good now. Couple of minor points in line below. 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