[ippm] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-16: (with COMMENT)

[Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-16: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Many thanks for the many updates in the -16, and my apologies for
the delay in reballoting.

I'm happy to report that the changes all look good to me, but do
have one comment that seems to remain valid:  In Section 6.3 where
we discuss the POSIX-based timestamp format, I think we do need to
say that it is affected by leap seconds (analogously to how we do
for the NTP format), per the guidance in RFC 8877.  I see in the
email thread that there was some desire to defer to 8877 rather than
try to reproduce a lot of it here (and inevitably end up with an
incomplete treatment); in that case, perhaps the Section 6.2 discussion
should be trimmed so that we provide an analogous level of detail
on all three timestamp formats.