Re: [Gen-art] gen-art telechat review of draft-ietf-avtcore-clksrc-09

Authors: I agree with Scott's recommendation. Are you willing to consider the change?

(But I have balloted no-obj.)

Jari

On Feb 3, 2014, at 11:58 AM, Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art