Dear all,
On 1/5/2023 9:48 AM, thomas.g...@swisscom.com wrote:
Dear Jean,
Thanks a lot for the comprehensive review and comments. They all make
perfectly sense.
I merged them into the -02 version
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/graf3net/draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry/main/draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-02.txt
And here the diff:
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-01.txt&url2=https://github.com/graf3net/draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry/blob/main/draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-02.txt
<https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-01.txt&url2=https://github.com/graf3net/draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry/blob/main/draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-02.txt>
Correct URL is actually (raw instead of blog):
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-01.txt&url2=https://github.com/graf3net/draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry/raw/main/draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-02.txt
Regards, Benoit
Please let me know if I addressed all your points. I will submit -02
once the ongoing adoption call is finished and the document name changed.
Best wishes
Thomas
*From:*Jean Quilbeuf <jean.quilb...@huawei.com>
*Sent:* Wednesday, January 4, 2023 6:11 PM
*To:* Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org>;
opsawg@ietf.org
*Cc:* draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-teleme...@ietf.org
*Subject:* RE: WG Adoption Call for
draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-01
Dear All,
I support the adoption of this draft.
I have a few very minor comments below.
Best,
Jean
Section 1, paragraph 4:
OLD
"Since these IPFIX IEs are performance metrics [RFC8911], they must be
registered as registered performance metrics [RFC8911] in the "IANA ..."
NEW
"Since these IPFIX IEs are performance metrics [RFC8911], they must be
registered in the "IANA ..."
Section 3.4.2
OLD
"For each <statistic>, Singleton one of the following [..] applies "
NEW
"For each <statistic> Singleton, one of the following [..] applies "
Section 3.4.2.3. (Max)
I would add the scope of n from RFC6049 after the formula
"where all packets n = 1 through N have finite singleton delays."
Section 6.2.X
"OctedDelta" is not defined, do you mean deltaCounter as in
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7012#section-3.2.3
Section 7.2
Computing the average from PathDelaySumDeltaMicroseconds seems
unecessary as PathDelayMeanDeltaMicroseconds already exports it. Maybe
state that the advantage of pushing that computation to the collector
is to avoid doing too much computation in the router?
*From:*OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org
<mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org>] *On Behalf Of *Tianran Zhou
*Sent:* Thursday 22 December 2022 02:26
*To:* opsawg@ietf.org
*Cc:* draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-teleme...@ietf.org
*Subject:* [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for
draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-01
Hi WG,
This mail starts a WG Adoption Call for
draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-01.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry/
<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry%2F&data=05%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7Caa99015a1e2c4866f54808daee76aa36%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C0%7C0%7C638084490672856810%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=v2E88K1AbhDgQXruPPmv6gWCI8cQ1lhaBkB2QFI2MqA%3D&reserved=0>
Please reply your supports or objections.
We would really appreciate your comments.
Since there are holidays, this call will last for 3 weeks, and end on
Thursday, Jan 12, 2023.
Cheers,
Tianran (as co-chairs)
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
