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

Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> Fri, 31 January 2014 00:05 UTC

Return-Path: <rlb@ipv.sx>
X-Original-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3F341A0526 for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 16:05:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ynWiqLL8N6iq for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 16:05:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oa0-f42.google.com (mail-oa0-f42.google.com [209.85.219.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 565C11A0521 for <avt@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 16:04:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oa0-f42.google.com with SMTP id i7so4531914oag.1 for <avt@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 16:04:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=2XwltR93uO7ZxlTPA9jr6/jCrvO26FObI6IRQa2wbCQ=; b=R+nKy63DGav+7vo40cRukRZrq8rUh60J5Encyt+s2rzrFg8edU1CByK9T3VOGBbz4d 004cxuhvPMm0wTE7W/bc5QYgCU8YPIBZ/sJeVZl5t5PtfEUp2dn+I46g74/eEffuvZXc JbDDOGheKSNnTkHaTzztz9r2Usk+hysXZhoyJML0D/CqokYCVV6eJ5KQFcl9+P0UqoY8 QR5EGM1664o+/XgCQu1tQ2I/+VwNCRA/KpT3AYd3Ww1jcV5bTRsUCJbc4mgleS9Z2dAh tO/4BpIvXatXkhooDoTp7htkNS8uYErYG7BwrNpml0oabk2fwku4ZA4b22g4L99k6nlk MIMw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnvV74mwIeVq7AIfkVW5WeEaRZIF5+6mwG2uxQjTvTSpFxJ7RQvQAGUUp0ECMoqfj65xuVn
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.29.98 with SMTP id j2mr13822306obh.30.1391126693800; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 16:04:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.60.69.102 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 16:04:53 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <134045964.59704.1390954796756.JavaMail.zimbra@audinate.com>
References: <CAL02cgT1=miDLUj3Rt7YT3owFEnzsw2RBiFaau6F6=yB9N=ymw@mail.gmail.com> <134045964.59704.1390954796756.JavaMail.zimbra@audinate.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 16:04:53 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL02cgR37ynutpEtjyi8Q4ZybuAZAPX38OtNF0Cvwnnf+fH64w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
To: Aidan Williams <aidan.williams@audinate.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c2c4846c10f104f138ec21"
Cc: "avt@ietf.org WG" <avt@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] AD review: draft-ietf-avtcore-clksrc-09
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance <avt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/avt/>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 00:05:04 -0000

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
>
>
>