On Sat, Mar 05, 2011 at 10:40:15PM +0200, Alexander Vainshtein wrote: > 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?
Sure. > 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. Agreed. -d > My 2c, Sasha _______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
