Re: [AVTCORE] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-avtcore-idms-09

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[e-mail]>]

Yes, we seem to get closer and closer, focus on one last issue (and much agreement deleted)

Thanks and Regards,

Dan



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brandenburg, R. (Ray) van [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 5:27 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: [e-mail]; General Area Review Team; Roni Even
> ([e-mail]); [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-avtcore-idms-09
> 
> Hi Dan,
> 
> Please see inline. We seem to be converging:)
> 
> Ray

> > > 7. In Section 8:
> > >
> > >    The timestamp is formatted based on the NTP
> > >    timestamp format as specified in [RFC5905].  If this field is
> > empty,
> > >    then it SHALL be set to 0.  This field MAY be left empty if none
> or
> > >    only one of the receivers reported on presentation timestamps.
> > >
> > > Why a MAY here? Especially for the case when none of the receivers
> > > reported, what content can be set there but 0 ?
> > >
> > > [Ray: I believe it should be up to the implementation to decide how
> > > it wants to handle the case of there being only one receiver who
> > > reported on presentation timestamps].
> > >
> > [[DR]] OK, so the cases when none of the receivers reported and one
> > receiver only reported should be dealt with differently. This needs to
> > be clarified.
> >
> > [Ray] What exactly is the problem with the MAY here? IMO it doesn't
> > create any interop issues: whatever is the reason for setting the
> > value to 0, to the client the end result is the same: ignore it.
> >
> 
> [[DR]] In the case when none of the receivers reported we want to avoid
> leaving some garbage in this field which could be interpreted
> differently - don't we?
> 
> [Ray] I think I see where we disagree. The paragraph says: "If this
> field is empty, then it SHALL be set to 0. This field MAY be left empty
> if none or only one of the receivers reported on presentation
> timestamps". The way I read this is as: In the case the field is
> declared empty (= contains NULL information), it SHALL be set to 0.
> There can be different reasons for declaring the field empty/NULL, one
> of those reasons is if none or only one receiver reported on
> presentation timestamps. To me, the paragraph doesn't say that this is
> the only possible reason, but it does specify very clearly that if you
> decide the field should be empty, you SHALL set it to zero.
> 
> 

[[DR]] But then, why do not you take out 'if none or' - because for the option of 'none' there is no alternative but the 'null' information, and the MAY does not make sense. 

Dan