Re: [mpls] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-14: (with COMMENT)

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ben,
thank you for your thorough review and comments. Please find my answers
in-line tagged GIM>>.

Regards,
Greg

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 3:16 PM, Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-14: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I have no objection, but do have some a few minor comments:
>
> Substantive:
>
> -2.1, 4th paragraph from end: Can you offer guidance on what might
> constitute a reasonably bound wait time?\
>
GIM>> Section 7.7.2 Message transmission intervals in IEEE.1588.2008
defines algorithm to calculate intervals  between PTP control messages that
will, in turn, define the range for "the reasonably bound time". But
specification of the precise values are deferred to the appropriate PTP
profiles.

>
> -2.1, 2nd paragraph from end: "... MUST NOT do both": What's the scope of
> that MUST NOT? Does it mean MUST NOT ever? NUST NOT in the same
> message?
>
GIM>> This is in reference to the node behavior in context of the same LSP.
On the given LSP the RTM-capable node MUST NOT perform in one-step and
two-step mode.

>
> Editorial:
> - Abstract: The last paragraph is a single, long sentence. Please
> consider breaking it into simpler sentences.
>
NEW TEXT

   Residence time is the variable part of propagation delay of timing
   and synchronization messages.  Knowing what this delay is for each
   message allows for a more accurate determination of the delay to be
   taken into account in applying the value included in a Precision Time
   Protocol event message.


> - 2.1, paragraph 9: "This bit, once it is set by a two-
>    step mode device, MUST stay set accordingly": Can that MUST be stated
> in process terms? That is, <actors>  MUST NOT unset this bit..."
>
OLD TEXT

   PTP messages also include a bit that indicates whether or not a
   follow-up message will be coming.  This bit, once it is set by a two-
   step mode device, MUST stay set accordingly until the original and
   follow-up messages are combined by an end-point (such as a Boundary
   Clock).

NEW TEXT

   PTP messages also include a bit that indicates whether or not a
   follow-up message will be coming.  This bit MAY be set by a two-step
   mode PTP device.  The value MUST NOT be unset until the original and
   follow-up messages are combined by an end-point (such as a Boundary
   Clock).



>
> -2.1, paragraph 11:  "Without loss of generality should note
>    that handling of Sync event messages..." : I don't follow the
> sentence; are words missing and/or out of order?
> -- "Following outlines handling of PTP Sync event message by the two-step
> RTM node.": I think there's a missing "the" at the start. It's absence
> completely changes the meaning of "following outlines"-- as written it
> seem like the verb is "following", but I think you mean it to be
> "outlines".
>
GIM>> Agreed, Prepend with 'The'.

> -- I have trouble matching some pronouns to their antecedents in the rest
> of the paragraph.
>
>
>