[Gen-art] gen-art telechat review of draft-ietf-avtcore-clksrc-09
Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com> Mon, 03 February 2014 16:59 UTC
Return-Path: <scott.brim@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FBA71A015C for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 08:59:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 X6rOFwkJxdWg for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 08:59:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ob0-x22a.google.com (mail-ob0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFEB51A0123 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 08:59:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ob0-f170.google.com with SMTP id va2so8193192obc.1 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Mon, 03 Feb 2014 08:59:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=46VDduNBuAlqBBtnRiZM6EimtMqV7XHY3Ap1faDxVVw=; b=CuElROYUzKa+dfVS+tNJ7SBFqMSjqt6v8zlCwUELll+Q1tirJGacYvAuKWvnztW1t0 ywHVyItF26ZyWK3ZTjtsxxiGdqyYpDoYX7du8GujwNQ4opoOvq86mWKTDtR6tB67axtP mqsr4F73z8bIfpdwMrB2uIqPJ7Ngbv7wVCiQYJCqr4rz/0ZJ0JAYlJPBjM8LY/dsf+wg R+5onpjcagB9TBe7ksTfLTHEOKj83ScU6IGvhVgyWu1G8JsmqC3+Eb64qhubuHfYnE0L Ar5o2Y+zQVGxwiNT+RhxmUaID5wkoWAAa9jU/jfFGR8uLp8PWbkUPiuXJZCM6TGW3yLk HykQ==
X-Received: by 10.60.165.72 with SMTP id yw8mr1167587oeb.71.1391446754188; Mon, 03 Feb 2014 08:59:14 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.48.9 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 08:58:54 -0800 (PST)
From: Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2014 11:58:54 -0500
Message-ID: <CAPv4CP_aQKceoZ+dL0BoEaaqVMXe++bKGe=4SSrNE73rP4u1ag@mail.gmail.com>
To: gen-art <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-avtcore-clksrc all <draft-ietf-avtcore-clksrc.all@tools.ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Subject: [Gen-art] gen-art telechat review of draft-ietf-avtcore-clksrc-09
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2014 16:59:19 -0000
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-ietf-avtcore-clksrc-09 Reviewer: Scott Brim Review Date: 2014-02-03 IETF LC End Date: 2014-01-16 IESG Telechat date: 2014-02-06 Summary: Ready with a minor issue Major issues: none Minor issues: This is the same version I reviewed at LC. After discussion with the authors I have changed my question to a recommendation. In 6.1.2 and 6.1.3 it says: "If the answerer rejects the offer because the available reference clocks are incompatible, the rejection MUST contain at least one timestamp reference clock specification usable by the answerer." I have learned that sending this reference clock specification is not required for the protocol to function. It is for the offerer's information, so that maybe next time the negotiation will succeed. - Since including the reference clock is not required for the protocol per se to work, consider making this MUST a SHOULD. - In any case, this needs to be justified. Even something as simple as adding "for the offerer's information" could be sufficient, although usually more would be expected. Scott
- [Gen-art] gen-art telechat review of draft-ietf-a… Scott Brim
- Re: [Gen-art] gen-art telechat review of draft-ie… Jari Arkko
- Re: [Gen-art] gen-art telechat review of draft-ie… Aidan Williams