Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) Latency Range Extension
RFC 8757

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.

Alvaro Retana Yes

(Deborah Brungard) No Objection

(Alissa Cooper) No Objection

Roman Danyliw No Objection

Comment (2019-08-04 for -04)
A few questions on unexpected values:

** Section 3.  How do the maximum and minimum latency fields relate?  For example, what happens if a receiver gets a message where the maximum latency is smaller than the minimum latency.

** Section 3.  How do the latency data item and the latency range item relate?  For example, what happens if a receiver gets a message that has both a latency data item and a latency range data item, and the reported latency is outside of the latency range?

Benjamin Kaduk No Objection

Comment (2019-08-07 for -04)
No email
send info
Roman's questions are good questions.

(Suresh Krishnan) No Objection

Warren Kumari No Objection

(Mirja Kühlewind) No Objection

Comment (2019-07-30 for -04)
I assume/understand that the measurement/calculation of the min/max values is implementation specific (as RFC8175 also states for the latency data). However, I think it would be could to state this explicitly and maybe also give some hints what to expect, e.g. it could be the 90% quantile rather than the absolute min/max.

(Barry Leiba) No Objection

(Alexey Melnikov) No Objection

Martin Vigoureux No Objection

Éric Vyncke No Objection

Comment (2019-07-13 for -04)
Thank you for this short and concise document.

I just wonder whether the packet size is taken into account for the minimum and maximum latency if compression/serialization is taken into account the measurement.