Re: [ippm] Second WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data

Hi all,

I have a comment on this draft.

I was told by the implementers of my company that it's difficult to add accurate transit delay into the trace option data. The reason is that in order to calculate transit delay, the node firstly needs to obtain the time at which the packet is transmitted by the node, which is obtained at PHY layer, otherwise, the node can't do any calculation after the time is obtained.

If the above issue is common across different implementations, I suggest to substitute the "transit delay" with '"timestamp" of the time at which the packet is transmitted by the node.

Best Regards,

Xiao Min

原始邮件

发件人：TommyPauly <tpauly=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
收件人：IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>;
日 期 ：2020年05月15日 01:16
主 题 ：[ippm] Second WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm

Hi IPPM,

At our virtual interim meeting, we decided to put draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data through a second last call, based on the new revisions, in mid-May. This email starts a two-week WGLC for this draft.

The latest version can be found here: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-09

This last call will end on Thursday, May 28. Please reply to ippm@ietf.org with your reviews and comments.

Thanks,

Tommy & Ian