[Ntp] more comments on Roughtime (draft-11)

[[e-mail]]

Hey Watson, editors, WG members,

First of all, I'd like to point out that Kristof and I have only recently realized that

the Roughtime draft is intended to be 'informational'. This makes the discussions

much easier from our point of view, as many of our previous criticisms and

comments were based strictly on the assumption that the draft would become

a 'standards track'. We were therefore very eager to get the draft to a high

level of detail, fully describing all the necessary security features and proofs.

Since this is not the case, we feel that it is sufficient to mention ideas and 

concepts in various sections of the draft, but not to describe them in detail.

I have just re-read the current version (draft-11) and added many comments 

that help improve it. I think that if the abstract and the introduction are a bit 

more precise and the comments in the PDF are taken into account, then I will 

not oppose further steps (like the WGLC).

Best regards,
Martin

__________________________________________
Dr.-Ing. Martin Langer
Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB)
Working Group 4.42 "Dissemination of Time"
Bundesallee 100,
38116 Braunschweig (Germany)
Tel.: [phone]
E-Mail: [e-mail]
__________________________________________