Dear Tim, On behalf of the authors. We received feedback from Deb, Gunter, Med and Greg and decided to publish revision -21.
https://author-tools.ietf.org/diff?doc_1=draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-21 We are looking forward to your feedback wherever the changes addressing your concerns. Best wishes Thomas -----Original Message----- From: Graf Thomas, SCS-INI-NET-VNC-E2E Sent: Friday, September 5, 2025 7:17 AM To: Tim Wicinski <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: [OPSAWG]draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-20 telechat Intdir review Dear Tim, We addressed your feedback together with Mike's, Med's, Deb's, Éric's, Gunter's, Greg's and Gorry's as following https://author-tools.ietf.org/diff?doc_1=draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-20&url_2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/network-analytics/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry/refs/heads/main/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-21.txt I hope this addresses your comments. Looking forward to your review. Best wishes Thomas -----Original Message----- From: Tim Wicinski via Datatracker <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, August 2, 2025 5:53 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [OPSAWG]draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-20 telechat Intdir review Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry Title: Export of Delay Performance Metrics in IP Flow Information eXport (IPFIX) Reviewer: Tim Wicinski Review result: Ready I am the assigned int-dir reviewer for this draft.These comments were written with the intent of improving the Internet area aspects of the IETF drafts. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. I feel this document is well written and clear. I have one comment for the authors and one minor nit. ## Comment - The Introduction feels too long it's over 2 pages long and it essenetially puts the architecture design in the Introduction, as well as using terminology named in section2. Suggestion - the first 3 paragraphs as the introduction, and moved the rest right after Terminology. Perhaps the WG already decided on this, which it is not enough to hold things up. ## Nit - terminology Your define three terms (could you alphabetize them?) but when you use them in the document you do not alphabetize them. I found several examples, I can submit details if you wish thanks tim _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
