Re: [AVTCORE] Mail regarding draft-ietf-avtcore-leap-second

This draft contains only recommendations, not requirements. You're welcome
to treat it as informational. Many have reported to me that it is very
helpful for understanding leap-second issues.

RFC 7273 can be used in conjunction with this draft to determine whether
timestamps in SRs contain leap-seconds.

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say, "Small system dependent
implementation of leap year."

Kevin Gross - AVA Networks

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Julius Friedman <juliusfriedman@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Granted then 3550 is updated in several standards and not necessarily
> obsoleted, maybe thats the problem; whether or not assumptions matter the
> details are clearly stated.
>
> This draft doesn't specifically say how to check or correct this issue
> which is should.
>
> What if one party is not in leap year time and another is?
>
> Furthermore the senders report is giving you a time to indicate the
> senders time for a sample.
>
> If this information is deemed so important that it makes it to standard
> then I don't see why other such issues as the octet count are not also
> addressed.
>
> Two years or not I would assume better later than never.
>
> Sincerely,
> Julius Richard Friedman
> On Dec 15, 2014 3:20 AM, "Brandenburg, R. (Ray) van" <
> ray.vanbrandenburg@tno.nl> wrote:
>
>>   Hi Julius,
>>
>>    > This rfc also updated 3550 which is obsolete and should update 3551
>> and only reference 3550 when required.
>>
>>  Where do you get the idea that 3550 is obsoleted?
>>
>>  > We assume that the small system dependent implementation of leap year
>> needs to be addressed at the rfc level.
>>
>>  With ‘we’, I assume you mean ‘you’, since I haven’t seen your opinion
>> on the mailing list in the roughly 2 years since this draft was first
>> introduced and it becoming an RFC.
>>
>>  Ray
>>
>>
>>   From: Julius Friedman <juliusfriedman@gmail.com>
>> Date: Sunday 14 December 2014 18:56
>> To: "draft-ietf-avtcore-leap-second@tools.ietf.org" <
>> draft-ietf-avtcore-leap-second@tools.ietf.org>
>> Subject: Mail regarding draft-ietf-avtcore-leap-second
>> Resent-To: Kevin Gross <kevin.gross@avanw.com>, Ray van Brandenburg <
>> ray.vanbrandenburg@tno.nl>
>>
>>   This is another priceless internet draft.
>>
>> We assume that the small system dependent implementation of leap year
>> needs to be addressed at the rfc level.
>>
>> We do so without providing anyway to test your implementation to the
>> given criteria or test the system to determine if any corrections are
>> actually required.
>>
>> This should at the best case be informational.
>>
>> It is a larger problem to calculate the payload rate without csrc,
>> extension and padding  than it would be to account for a leap year, this is
>> especially true if the receiver synchronized to the sender then the time
>> difference becomes 0 anyway.
>>
>> This rfc also updated 3550 which is obsolete and should update 3551 and
>> only reference 3550 when required.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Julius Richard Friedman
>>
>>
>>
>> This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you
>> are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you
>> are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no
>> liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use
>> it and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the
>> electronic transmission of messages.
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
> avt@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
>
>