Re: [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-13

[Alexander Vainshtein <[e-mail]>]

My thanks as well - to Robert for a most careful review and to Greg for
handling the draft for all these years.

Regards,
Sasha

On Feb 22, 2017 16:22, "Greg Mirsky" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Robert,
> agreed. Thank you for your thorough review and the most helpful comments.
> I'll upload the update shortly.
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 1:09 AM, Robert Sparks <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> I would simply delete "To ensure precise accuracy in time determination"
>> and start the sentence at "These actions"
>>
>> RjS
>>
>> On 2/15/17 9:40 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote:
>>
>> Hi Robert,
>> safe travel and here's another version for your consideration. The point
>> I'm trying to convey is that the jitter is real but must be accounted not
>> as part of propagation delay but as residence time. Hope I'm getting close.
>>
>>    Each RTM-capable
>>    node on the explicit path receives an RTM packet and records the time
>>    at which it receives that packet at its ingress interface as well as
>>    the time at which it transmits that packet from its egress interface.
>>    To ensure precise accuracy in time determination these actions should
>>    be done as close to the physical layer as possible at the same point
>>    of packet processing striving to avoid introducing the appearance of
>>    jitter in propogation delay whereas it should be accounted as
>>    residence time.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Robert Sparks <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/15/17 11:20 AM, Greg Mirsky wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Robert,
>>> yes, you've absolutely correct in your example
>>>
>>>