Greg, On 21/10/2017 01:34, Greg Mirsky wrote: ... > > session-delay-statistics and session-jitter-statistics are too > limiting in many dimensions - no support to reflect one-way (far-end > and near-end) and round-trip measurements for the same test session, > and too few metrics., e.g. no report of percentile. > > - > > session-delay-statistics does not reflect type of delay > variation being calculated. As analyzed in RFC 5481, PDV and IPDV > characterize different conditions (Section 5) and at least reflecting > which one being calculated and reported is very informative. > I had similar comments on draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-methods-09 in my Gen-ART review at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/qA38WYm5ookOePfnhqO4yM09cvc. I haven't reviewed draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam itself, but it seems that the authors have chosen to leave quite a few things under-defined, which bothers me from the interoperability viewpoint. Presumably the existing implementations have taken specific decisions on these points, which could be documented, even as default recommendations? Regards Brian