Hi Rakesh, Thanks for considering my comments!
Best regards, Mach > -----Original Message----- > From: Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 8:20 PM > To: Mach Chen <[email protected]>; spring <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ippm] Comments on draft-gandhi-spring-sr-mpls-pm and draft- > gandhi-spring-udp-pm > > Thanks Mach for the review comments. We will add following text in the > next revision of the documents. > > 1. Loss Measurement > > The path segment identifier [I-D.spring-mpls-path-segment] > [I-D.pce-sr-path-segment] of the SR Policy is required for accounting > received traffic on the egress node for loss measurement. > > 2. Two-way End-to-end Measurement of SR Policy > > The path segment identifier [I-D.spring-mpls-path-segment] > [I-D.pce-sr-path-segment] of the forward SR Policy can be used to > find the reverse SR Policy to send the probe response message. > > Thanks, > Rakesh > > > On 2018-09-10, 9:12 PM, "ippm on behalf of Mach Chen" <ippm- > [email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Authors, > > The draft-li-pce-sr-path-segment and draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path- > segment define the notion of path segment identifier. Could you please > consider adding some text in draft-gandhi-spring-udp-pm and draft-gandhi- > spring-sr-mpls-pm and how it is applicable to performance measurement in > segment routing? > > Best regards > Mach > > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm > _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
