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" <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 2/15/17 11:20 AM, Greg Mirsky wrote: >>> >>> Hi Robert, >>> yes, you've absolutely correct in your example >>> >>>
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
