Hi Adrian, thank you for bringing this work to my attention. I've read and shared my comments earlier. The authors responded promptly and we've worked together to address my comments. After reading the current version I have a question about the importance of identifying the particular active measurement protocol used to measure the reported performance metrics. If reporting the protocol used for the performance measurement is deemed essential to characterize the accuracy of the measurement method, then I would propose to consider several additions to the model:
- adding STAMP described in RFCs 8762 and 8972 to the list of active measurement methods - adding Error Estimate for Session-Sender and Session-Reciever/Session-Reflector for OWAMP, TWAMP, and STAMP Thank you for your kind consideration. Regards, Greg On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 2:48 PM Adrian Farrel <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm the document shepherd for draft-ietf-opsawg-yang-vpn-service-pm. It has > completed WG last call in the OPSAWG. > > The work may be of interest to IPPM and you might want to watch out for the > IETF last call which will be along in due course. > > But I'm sure that the authors would welcome any comments you have at any > time. > > Best, > Adrian > > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm >
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
