Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-time-format-04

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Chris,
the most sincere thanks for the review and comments you've shared. I've
applied both changes and posted as -05 version already.

Best regards,
Greg

On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 6:44 PM, Chris Lonvick <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
> ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.
> These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area
> directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
>
> The document is ready with minor nits. The document calls for the change
> of designation of a field in an established protocol. This is called out
> throughout Section 2 and will need to be ratified by the IANA in Section 3.
> The previous documents set the bit to MUST BE ZERO and this document uses
> it to signal an option to use either the NTP timestamp (still using 0) or a
> more recently adopted 1588 timestamp (1). The Security Considerations
> section appropriately names the prior documents and references their
> Security Considerations sections.
>
> Minor nits:
>
> The last sentence of the first paragraph of Section 1 is:
> "And of mentioned solutions will be subject to additional queuing delays
> that negatively affect data plane clock accuracy."
> Perhaps should be "Any of the mentioned..."
>
> The second sentence of the first paragraph of Section 2 is:
> "In these procedures, the Modes field been used to identify and select
> specific communication capabilities."
> Perhaps should be "...has been used..."
>
> I didn't do a thorough read through the document so there may be other
> minor nits.
>
> Regards,
> Chris
>