[OPS-DIR]draft-ietf-ntp-over-ptp-05 ietf last call Opsdir review

Tony Li via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Sat, 13 September 2025 02:51 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ops-dir@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ops-dir@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from [10.244.8.59] (unknown [4.156.85.76]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4741F620405E; Fri, 12 Sep 2025 19:51:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Tony Li via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: ops-dir@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 12.49.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <175773187990.1628073.17287248229249914229@dt-datatracker-f7c8fdcb7-pjx77>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2025 19:51:19 -0700
Message-ID-Hash: PRK3LQJCNWGUM3Y53JN7VRW7EGG2EIAP
X-Message-ID-Hash: PRK3LQJCNWGUM3Y53JN7VRW7EGG2EIAP
X-MailFrom: noreply@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-ops-dir.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: draft-ietf-ntp-over-ptp.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, ntp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Reply-To: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
Subject: [OPS-DIR]draft-ietf-ntp-over-ptp-05 ietf last call Opsdir review
List-Id: Ops Directorate <ops-dir.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/GkAy35zstj2jz7gH5S-EXSVd0EE>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ops-dir>
List-Help: <mailto:ops-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:ops-dir-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ops-dir@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:ops-dir-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ops-dir-leave@ietf.org>

Document: draft-ietf-ntp-over-ptp
Title: NTP Over PTP
Reviewer: Tony Li
Review result: Ready

OPSDIR Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ntp-over-ptp

Reviewer: Tony Li
Status: Ready

Disclaimer: I have been an NTP user since the 1980's, but am a novice
at PTP. I have reviewed the WG exchanges on this draft. I'm a Juniper
employee, but I have nothing to do with Juniper's implementation of
this draft.

Overall: I found this very straightforward and pretty well
written. There's a whole bunch of editorial issues, and I don't have
the energy to attack them all. I will let the RFC editor do their job.
>From an operational perspective, this is an excellent idea which will
seem strange at first (don't cross the streams!), but ultimately makes
good sense. Assuming a sane configuration and reasonable debugging in
the endpoints, this should be straightforward to manage.

Details:

Section 1:

Paragraph 1:
s/supported/support/
s/processing/processing,/ (again in paragrph 3)
s/on accuracy/on the accuracy/

Paragraph 5:
s/transport/transports/