Unlike other drafts, this document is just one continuous page. Is that deliberate?
Section 1, paragraph 3: "The proposal in this document makes more sense for the postcard mode." Please clarify whether this means that it only applies to postcard mode and must not be used in passport mode. Or can it be used for passport mode despite this statement? Section 1, paragraph 4: "they must be registered in the "IANA Performance Metric Registry [IANA-PERF-METRIC] ." Someone must come back and update this to, "they are registered", or "they have been registered", but there's no mark in the document to indicate that the text must be updated. Figure 1 might be clearer if the routers? were numbered R0, R1, R2, R3 so that node R1 exports delay R1; node R2 exports delay D2, and node R3 exports D3. Please draw arrowheads on the H1 ---> H2 lines. Why is 'x' a slight horizontal distance from R1, rather than on the dotted line? In Figure 1 and the following two paragraphs, "Node" and "Router" are used interchangeably. Could one term be used consistently? Section 1, last paragraph. I don't understand this: "For the computation of the min, max, and mean delay metric to be computed locally on the router, the exporter Metering Process requires some local caching/processing computation (for each new packets in the flow), specifically the mean value." I don't understand this: "The alternative, with no delay monitoring on the router, requires the export of every single packet as a separate Flow Record, including the timestamps information, as described in [I-D.ietf-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark] for Alternate Marking, for the Collector to compute delay metrics (min, max, and mean), before recomputing the aggregated Flow Record." Section 2: "This document makes use of the terms defined in [RFC7011] and [RFC9378]." The following sections mention terms from RFC7011, RFC8911, and RFC7799, but not from RFC9378. 3.1.1.2 "Observation Point (OP) [RFC7011]" It's not useful to define (OP) here. "RFC EDITOR NOTE: please replace [RFC-to-be]." TBD1 - TBD4 must also be replaced. 3.1.1.2 - 3.1.2 The document should define and request one metric at a time, rather than providing bulk inputs. At least the Name, URI, Description, and Units should be grouped per metric, because the current format provides no relation between these values. 3.2.1, 4th paragraph: "With the OP [RFC7011] typically located". I guess "OP" is "Observation Point", but "OP" is not defined in RFC7011. Just write "Observation Point" (twice). 3.4.2.5 Why are the PM metrics measured in seconds (with a resolution of 1ns) while the IPFIX IEs are in Microseconds? There was no mention that they are incompatible, nor any discussion of how to convert between them. Section 4. Is this section necessary? These definitions repeat those in section 6, except that the line, "according to OWDelay_HybridType1_Passive_IP_RFC[RFC-to-be]_Seconds_* in the IANA Performance Metric Registry." is missing. 6.1 "with the four templates defined in Section 3." It was not clear that section 3 defined four templates. 7.4 "comparing the timestamps for each received packet" It may be clearer to write, "comparing the OWD timestamps in each received packet". A.1.2 Figure 5, Length should be 64. P. ________________________________ From: Mahesh Jethanandani Sent: Monday, April 28, 2025 23:08 To: [email protected] Cc: opsawg-chairs; opsawg; Aitken, Paul; [email protected] Subject: [**EXTERNAL**] Re: AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-17 Resending with the correct address for IANA. On Apr 28, 2025, at 3:02 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Authors, Thanks for putting this document together. The document has already been reviewed by several folks, so most of these comments should be easy to address. Normally, IANA would review this document later in the process, but I would like them to review this document early, as most of the document relates to IANA. I have a separate note for Paul Aitken in the document. Cheers.
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
