Re: Review of draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-time-format-03
Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Fri, 03 March 2017 22:46 UTC
Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 074751295C8; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 14:46:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 suwA9YakIThs; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 14:46:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi0-x22f.google.com (mail-oi0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 715C4127076; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 14:46:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id 126so11415932oig.3; Fri, 03 Mar 2017 14:46:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=mKezgPwA2bhG+GhU2xZiUlem0a0e2rz0W5CD/eUh5Ws=; b=EA1AsieYIhLH/2XSIRgh05a4sjnRFWwFP1eux07Bn9J/09VfrB5u8dXJcKxN8Ejl0k KMkGlqK8a9iw8vNbb84ABBvaNjBzfVRWeQ6mlLpLexQ9bre5gA+puWwXeLkdjDyTK8g2 hjmJJhy896kX5+X3+kHQ58BF99U4Vcza35LLJbwT0HAfd7UxIsMpwJzBQk2Dd2HmnAbK oFAzgcQ28JRX9nAHtWOwY0GBAu374fdB3cNLRCjlnTWz9RIaN5WzM6A1WWsyyHlFiKq8 wjPe0zab7CCGlp20Mr/YhVu06b8b3jkJg9HDEt9j5TGgKMlo5DR6Jrm7Y9E1txXXuCGr 03DA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=mKezgPwA2bhG+GhU2xZiUlem0a0e2rz0W5CD/eUh5Ws=; b=RcKN58zgeQZSFEVRtWixy+8sT3a5SK5kIovVLps2JhxmtHsios+5slsTU7REEgxugd Sd98JMqiPrEfddQXM2cNzGslRaKysHDvtHiKWceOxkSchbSN4ItdMq9YgghtddbE87P+ dQlqZZwYhZnNGge0jMQO/cb4L4yvz7jyuRGmca/eyj9bUaAr6fIseLTckN0gq81lZySi a4xEgj2Z2OklY/jQH78owwhHc2lnWJ7yIlVNvXzVBoXo0EP8oNlG4rBDcNaNmHxx15+n 55XbgoTaYCebRf6kVSsWZtjfqM1Jq7+nukouCvx66865Ez90dusYHi0gF2MhDc+7ERyR cKzg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39nvRefIHCbyRYGbbb2CoTV4Er5IiWihilH0qDLbbEhod0W/jQ39ywUJunMFY6O5ffUCTMlJ88dvAhFb4Q==
X-Received: by 10.202.236.140 with SMTP id k134mr2517654oih.123.1488581193726; Fri, 03 Mar 2017 14:46:33 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.21.21 with HTTP; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 14:46:33 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <148851630299.30809.13198180923270314805.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <148851630299.30809.13198180923270314805.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2017 14:46:33 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmXvAG0t1pXqr7TK9gySB+Wsptiq0NLZy8nHySRBh2fq4w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Review of draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-time-format-03
To: Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1134fc3e4583370549db51c7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/MvyBuxtU8g3eO-OpRqWe7mxaJ1c>
Cc: "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "ippm@ietf.org" <ippm@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-time-format.all@ietf.org, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2017 22:46:39 -0000
Hi Joel, thank you for your thorough review and the most helpful comments. I've did s/proposal/specification/ through the document. As for the section 2.1 would the following text be clearer: The rules of setting timestamp flags in Modes field in server greeting and Set-Up-Response messages and interpreting them are as follows: o If the Session-Receiver supports this extension, then the Server that establishes test sessions on its behalf MUST set PTPv2 Timestamp flag to 1 in the server greeting message per the requirement listed in Section 2. Otherwise, the PTPv2 Timestamp flag will be set to 0 to indicate that the Session-Reciever interprets only NTP format. o If the Control-Client receives greeting message with the PTPv2 Timestamp flag set to 0, then the Session-Sender MUST use NTP format for timestamp in the test session and Control-Client SHOULD set PTPv2 Timestamp flag to 0 in accordance with [RFC4656]. If the Session-Sender cannot use NTP timestamps, then the Control- Client SHOULD close the TCP connection associated with the OWAMP- Control session. o If the Control-Client receives greeting message with the PTPv2 Timestamp flag set to 1 and the Session-Sender can set timestamp in PTPv2 format, then the Control-Client MUST set the PTPv2 Timestamp flag to 1 in Modes field in the Set-Up-Response message and the Session-Sender MUST use PTPv2 timestamp format. o If the Session-Sender doesn't support this extension and can set timestamp only in NTP format, then the PTPv2 Timestamp flag in Modes field in the Set-Up-Response message will be set to 0 as part of Must Be Zero and the Session-Sender use NTP format. Regards, Greg On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 8:45 PM, Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote: > Reviewer: Joel Halpern > Review result: Ready with Nits > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-time-format-?? > Reviewer: Joel Halpern > Review Date: 2017-03-02 > IETF LC End Date: 2017-03-15 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: > > Major issues: > > Minor issues: > The wording of the behavioral requirements for signaling in > section 2.1 is atypical for IETF documents (and in my view makes it > harder for the reader to follow.) The rules are listed as separate > rules, but they are actually sequential steps that must be test in > order, exiting the process if the condition for each step is met. But > it does not actually say that. > > Nits/editorial comments: > Section 2.3 refers to this as a proposal. It is a specification, > not a proposal. Please reword. > > >
- Review of draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-time-format-03 Joel Halpern
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-time-format-03 Greg Mirsky
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-time-format-03 Joel M. Halpern