Hi, Henk et al., I read the draft and found it well-written. I believe that it addresses the real issue and provides a viable solution. I support its adoption by the OPSAWG.
Regards, Greg On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 2:58 AM Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@ietf.contact> wrote: > Dear OPSAWG members, > > this email starts a call for Working Group Adoption of > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-01 > > ending on Saturday, July 6th. That is a little bit of an odd duration, > but the I-D is crisp and concise and if there is rough consensus after > that time, this work may become a WG item before the upcoming cut-off. > > As a reminder, this I-D specifies IPFIX Information Elements for the > Alternate-Marking Method as defined in RFC9341 & RFC9342; a technique > for measuring packet loss, delay, and jitter of packets in-flight. > > The chairs acknowledge positive feedback and some review on the list and > we would like to gather feedback from the WG if there is interest to > further contribute and review. > > Please reply with your support and especially any substantive comments > you may have. > > > For the OPSAWG co-chairs, > > Henk > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org >
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
