I support WG adoption of this draft.
Best Regards,
Xiao Min
Original
From: HenkBirkholz
To: OPSAWG ;
Date: 2024年06月26日 17:59
Subject: [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-01
Dear OPSAWG members,
this email starts a call for Working Group Adoption of
>
Hi Giuseppe,
Thank you for addressing my comments.
The added clarification text looks good to me.
Best Regards,
Xiao Min
Original
From: GiuseppeFioccola
To: 肖敏10093570;thomas.g...@swisscom.com ;
Cc: draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-m...@ietf.org
;opsawg@ietf.org
;i...@ietf.org ;
Date:
I support wg adoption of this draft.
Responding to the call for discussion by the chairs, I would provide some
comments for the authors consideration.
1. Abstract and Section 2,
In Abstract it says "
A case in point is the qualifiers "in-band" and
"out-of-band" which have their origins in the
Got it. Thank you Thomas!
If some text can be added to clarify this usage of
ingressInterface/egressInterface and
ingressPhysicalInterface/egressPhysicalInterface, that would help the
implementer.
Cheers,
Xiao Min
Original
From: thomas.g...@swisscom.com
To: 肖敏10093570;
Cc:
Correcting the email address i...@ietf.org.
Hi Thomas,
If I understand you correctly, you mean the IE exporter can use
ingressInterface/egressInterface to indicate LAG port and
ingressPhysicalInterface/egressPhysicalInterface to indicate LAG member port,
so the receiver can deduce the
Hi authors,
At the request of Giuseppe, I had a read on draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-00.
There are IPFIX IEs ingressInterface, egressInterface, ingressPhysicalInterface
and egressPhysicalInterface, is there an IE indicating a LAG interface?
Best Regards,
Xiao
I agree with Adrian and Stewart.
The current terms that I know of are IOAM (In situ OAM), in-band OAM (sometimes
In-band OAM or Inband OAM), and out-of-band OAM (sometimes Out-of-band OAM). I
lean to remain it as is.
Best Regards,
Xiao Min
Original
From: StewartBryant
To:
