Dan,
Lots of thanks for a prompt response. I've looked up Section 2.7.2 as you've
suggested.
I think that placing the text that deals with location of the loss and delay
measurement points in the section on QoS is misleading.
Would you consider splitting it into a dedicated section?
As for the position you've taking: I understand the intention to make the draft
generic enough and not to prescribe specific location of the measurement
points. However, leaving this point open carries with it serious
interoperability issues. As a minimum, I would suggest replacing SHOULD in this
text with MUST.
My 2c,
Sasha
________________________________________
From: [email protected] [[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dan Frost
[[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 7:16 PM
To: Alexander Vainshtein
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [mpls] [TICTOC] draft-ietf-mpls-loss-delay Timestamp
Hi Sasha,
On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 07:05:08PM +0200, Alexander Vainshtein wrote:
> Stewart, Dan and all,
> I have a question regarding the draft which, IMHO, to some extent is
> related to the ability to use HW-assisted PTP timestamping.
>
> The question is, at which moment the DM message receives its Tx
> timestamp: before it is queued for transmission or after it has been
> extracted from the queue and is ready to be sent on the appropriate
> physical media?
>
> I believe I've asked a similar question in the past with regard to
> direct loss measurement. However, I did not find any reference to this
> issue in the draft.
On this topic please see the last paragraph of Section 2.7.2. Since
this draft is intended to be general enough to cover a wide variety of
situations, I'm inclined to avoid saying more than is said there.
Cheers,
-d
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
_______________________________________________
TICTOC mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
