Re: comments on draft-ietf-itrace-03

"Taylor, Tom-PT [CAR:5N00:EXCH]" wrote:
> 
> I'm sorry -- I should have responded to the original note.  Most of my responses
> would have been: "Agreed.  I'll make the necessary changes."
> 
> I'm glad the second timestamp issue has been brought out.  I am the one who made the
> change on my own initiative, because I foresaw the possibility of a significant time
> lapse between when the traced packet was captured and when the the trace packet was
> formatted and sent out (e.g. if the traced packets got sent to an off-board computer
> for processing).  I pointed out this change to Marcus and Steve at the time, but I
> should have sent a note to the general list.  If people don't think this is needed,
> I'll take it out again.
> 
I think that the "time captured" is the most important data, while the second
  provides some statistics on processing performance, it's not really useful
  for actual ITRACE processing.  I'd say remove it.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Marcus Leech                             Mail:   Dept 8M70, MS 012, FITZ
Advisor                                  Phone: (ESN) 393-9145  +1 613 763 9145
Security Architecture and Planning       Fax:   (ESN) 393-9435  +1 613 763 9435
Nortel Networks                          [email protected]
-----------------Expressed opinions are my own, not my employer's------