Hello Thomas,
Thank you kindly for your email and the explanations.
Yes thank you, this has addressed my concerns.
Best Regards,
Menachem
בתאריך יום ה׳, 27 בפבר׳ 2025 ב-16:40 מאת <Thomas.Graf@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
Dear Menachem,
Thanks a lot for the review and apologies for delayed replied. We are preparing -15 and addressed your comments here:
https://author-tools.ietf.org/diff?doc_1=draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-14&url_2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/network-analytics/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry/refs/heads/main/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-15.txt
> I believe that the introduction would be clearer if the instructions to IANA about the new elements were not included in the Introduction section but left for the IANA section later in the document. I also think that the measurement interval period should be mentioned in the introduction and added to the diagram in Figure 1
You are refering to figure 1 which compares the IP performance with the IANA registry. This is done by purpose to describe the relationship between the two before going to Section 3 and 4 where each are being addressed.
> In section 3.3.5 it was not clear to me how the T0 and Tf are determined by each node. Section 7.4 Measurement Interval does not explain what triggers the start and end of the measurement interval. But maybe I have missed this. 4.
T0 and Tf are being determined on the OAM nodes described in the following section "3.3.6. Roles". I updated Section 7.4 to give more clarity how the delay is being measured and accounted in flows.
Please let me know wherever this addresses your comments.
Best wishes
Thomas
-----Original Message-----
From: Menachem Dodge via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, February 8, 2025 8:40 PM
To: ops-dir@xxxxxxxx
Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry.all@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx; opsawg@xxxxxxxx
Subject: [OPSAWG]Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-14
Reviewer: Menachem Dodge
Review result: Has Nits
Reviewer: Menachem Dodge
Review result: Has Nits
I have reviewed this document as part of the Ops area directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Ops area directors.
Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last-call comments.
The document defines an additional 4 IPFIX Information Elements in order to export measured delay of packet flows at transit and decapsulating nodes.
The document is readable and understandable.
Nits
====
1. In the first paragraph of the introduction section the word "need" is used twice but I believe that it should be "needs" with an 's'. 2. I believe that the introduction would be clearer if the instructions to IANA about the new elements were not included in the Introduction section but left for the IANA section later in the document. I also think that the measurement interval period should be mentioned in the introduction and added to the diagram in Figure 1. 3. In section 3.3.5 it was not clear to me how the T0 and Tf are determined by each node. Section 7.4 Measurement Interval does not explain what triggers the start and end of the measurement interval. But maybe I have missed this. 4. Section A.1 the title: "Aggregated On-Path Dealay Examples" should be "Delay".
Thank you
-- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
