Hi Thomas,
Some comments to your reply.
> Alternate Marking does not describe a method were the timestamp is within the
> packet
You can refer to the following draft, where you can get the timestamp you need.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhou-ippm-enhanced-alternate-marking/
> In
> On 8. Dec 2022, at 21:34, Henk Birkholz
> wrote:
>
> Dear OPSAWG members,
>
> this starts a Working Group Adoption call for a bundle of two documents:
>
>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-tuexen-opsawg-pcapng-05.html
>>
Dear Greg,
Thanks a lot for the review and feedback.
* as I understand it, the scope of this document is on reporting
delay-related metrics based on the use of IOAM specifically. Is that correct
understanding? If it is, reflecting that in the title might be helpful as other
op-path
