Hi Rakesh, thank you for bringing this draft up for discussion. There was not enough time to ask questions at the SPRING WG meeting and this is a very good opportunity. I understand that you've proposed to use RFC 6374 to encode PM operations and measurements. Also, you've referenced work on OWAMP and TWAMP. But I don't find any reference to STAMP <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-01>in the draft. How would you position STAMP, its optional extensions <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mirsky-ippm-stamp-option-tlv-01>, and YANG model <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-yang-01> in comparison with your new draft?
Regards, Greg On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 6:57 AM, Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi WG, > > > > We like to introduce following new draft that was presented to SPRING WG > yesterday. > > > > This draft defines IP/UDP path for sending probe query messages for delay > and loss measurement that is agnostics to data plane (SR-MPLS/SRv6/IP) and > does not require to bootstrap PM session. > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gandhi-spring-udp-pm/ > > > > You may find presentation in the following package (it is the second > draft). > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/102/materials/slides- > 102-spring-13-performance-measurement-in-sr-networks-00 > > > > We welcome your comments and suggestions. > > > > Thanks, > > Rakesh (On behalf of authors and contributors) > > > > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm > >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
