Re: [AVTCORE] AD review: draft-ietf-avtcore-clksrc-09

Hi Richard, 

I'm flexible, but I'd prefer to do another revision that addresses all comments in one batch. 

The other comments I have received so far are editorial in nature, so proceeding to IESG review seems appropriate. 

- aidan 

----- Original Message -----

| From: "Richard Barnes" <rlb@ipv.sx>
| To: "Aidan Williams" <aidan.williams@audinate.com>
| Cc: "avt@ietf.org WG" <avt@ietf.org>
| Sent: Friday, 31 January, 2014 11:04:53 AM
| Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] AD review: draft-ietf-avtcore-clksrc-09

| Hey Aidan,

| Would you like to go ahead and revise the document before it goes to the IESG
| for evaluation? Or we can handle these with any IESG comments.

| --Richard

| On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Aidan Williams < aidan.williams@audinate.com
| > wrote:

| | Hi Richard,
| 

| | Thanks for the review. Responses are inline below...
| 

| | | From: "Richard Barnes" <rlb@ipv.sx>
| | 
| 
| | | To: " avt@ietf.org WG" < avt@ietf.org >
| | 
| 
| | | Sent: Sunday, 29 December, 2013 12:25:39 PM
| | 
| 
| | | Subject: [AVTCORE] AD review: draft-ietf-avtcore-clksrc-09
| | 
| 

| | | I have reviewed this document in preparation for IETF LC. Overall, it
| | | reads
| | | quite well. Thanks! I have requested a LC.
| | 
| 

| | | A couple of comments that you can consider with LC comments:
| | 
| 

| | | -- It seems like a reader familiar with
| | | draft-ietf-avtext-rtp-grouping-taxonomy might be surprised by these
| | | terms.
| | | Given that that document is still in development, I don't expect you to
| | | be
| | | able to use the terms there. However, it might be helpful to add a note
| | | saying that you are not attempting to align with their terminology.
| | 
| 

| | It is great that there is a document attempting to define terminology
| | clearly
| | (it would have been awesome to have it for this draft!), but I'm not sure
| | how to go about addressing your comment since we probably don't want to
| | refer to the above draft explicitly. At present, there is a positive
| | statement: "here are the definitions". Can you say a bit more about what
| | you
| | would like to see?
| 

| | | -- GLONASS?
| | 
| 

| | Happy to add this.
| 

| | | -- Behavior with traceable clocks seems underspecified to me. Section 4.7
| | | should say explicitly that traceable clocks are marked with the
| | | ":traceable"
| | | suffix or the "/traceable/" identifier. With regard to NTP/PTP servers,
| | | how
| | | does the user of the clock know that the server is traceable? Is this
| | | indicated in-band to those protocols? Would it not be useful to be able
| | | to
| | | indicate that those servers provide traceable time?
| | 
| 

| | Marking a clock as traceable allows additional information (e.g. IP
| | addresses, PTP master identifiers and the like) to be omitted from the SDP
| | since any traceable clock available at the answerer is considered to be an
| | appropriate timestamp reference clock. For example, an offerer could could
| | specify ts-refclk:ntp=/traceable/ and the answerer could use GPS as a
| | reference clock since GPS is a source of traceable time.
| 

| | Would some additional sentences such as these address your comment?
| 

| | regards
| 
| | aidan
| 
| | ____
| 
| | :wq!
| 

| | | --Richard
| | 
| 

| | | _______________________________________________
| | 
| 
| | | Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
| | 
| 
| | | avt@ietf.org
| | 
| 
| | | https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
| | 
| 