Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-06: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks to David Black for the tsvart review, and for the authors addressing his comments. Sec 2.2 It would help to define "up" and "down" connections. Sec 3.2.1 & 3.2.2. I am not sure of the extent which IPPM metrics and methods can apply to these layers. But there are some references that can guide loss, delay, and jitter measurements: Loss: RFC 7680, RFC 6673 Delay: RFC 7679, RFC 2681 Jitter: RFC 3393 I encourage the authors to peruse IPPM's published RFCs on datatracker to see if other documents would be similarly useful. _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
