Dear Gorry, On behalf of the authors, thank you very much for your detailed review and comments.
We addressed your feedback together with Tim's, Mike's, Med's, Deb's, Éric's, Greg's and Gunter's as following https://author-tools.ietf.org/diff?doc_1=draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-20&url_2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/network-analytics/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry/refs/heads/main/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-21.txt Here additional clarifications on Gunter's feedback: GV> (see DISCUSS) There seems to be a miscommunication i here. The alt-mark-framework is not measuring by inserting timestamps, but my setting bits and alternating these bits to measure a delay based upon the event when a a bit goes up or down. Completely agree. The initial authors thoughts where that Enhanced Alternate Marking is a subset auf Alternate Marking and therefore mentioning the term Alternate Marking in the introduction and detail int section 7.5, In-Packet OAM Application, would give clarity, however we understood from various feedback that this was ambiguous. Therefore we removed Alternate Marking references and focus on Enhanced Alternate Marking instead throughout the document. Enhanced Alternate Marking does include a timestamp in the packet. GV> ## (DISCUSS#4) In the below snip, on line 180 it is unclear what is a "mean"? This is described in section 4.4.2.1, OWDelay_HybridType1_Passive_IP_RFC[RFC-to-be]_Seconds_Mean I hope this addresses your comments. Looking forward to your review. Best wishes Thomas -----Original Message----- From: Gorry Fairhurst via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> Sent: Monday, August 4, 2025 6:09 PM To: The IESG <i...@ietf.org> Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-teleme...@ietf.org; opsawg-cha...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org Subject: [OPSAWG]Gorry Fairhurst's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-20: (with COMMENT) Gorry Fairhurst has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-20: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks to Martin Duke for his TSV-ART review, where he notes: This document could use an editorial review for clarity. Sentence fragments like "The timestamp when the packet is being received at OAM encapsulating node." are hard to parse. The Introduction was really unclear and I had to read it a few times to understand what this document was doing, despite a basic conceptual familiarity with IOAM. Please also see the DISCUSS comments of Gunter Van de Velde regarding operation of Alt Mark.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
