Re: [TICTOC] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-tictoc-multi-path-synchronization-06: (with COMMENT)

Tal Mizrahi <> Thu, 20 October 2016 10:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 565C5129587; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 03:29:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mSITm2mwtUkf; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 03:29:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05D89129569; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 03:22:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd ( []) by ( with SMTP id u9KAMfpD007709; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 03:22:49 -0700
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP id 263htkuh1e-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 20 Oct 2016 03:22:49 -0700
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 13:22:46 +0300
Received: from ([fe80::5d63:81cd:31e2:fc36]) by ([fe80::5d63:81cd:31e2:fc36%20]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.000; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 13:22:46 +0300
From: Tal Mizrahi <>
To: Mirja Kuehlewind <>, The IESG <>
Thread-Topic: =?utf-8?B?TWlyamEgS8O8aGxld2luZCdzIE5vIE9iamVjdGlvbiBvbiBkcmFmdC1pZXRm?= =?utf-8?B?LXRpY3RvYy1tdWx0aS1wYXRoLXN5bmNocm9uaXphdGlvbi0wNjogKHdpdGgg?= =?utf-8?Q?COMMENT)?=
Thread-Index: AQHSKh71dLKK4b8dhke78nFZC/lSIqCxI2rQ
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 10:22:45 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2016-10-20_04:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1609300000 definitions=main-1610200186
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [TICTOC] =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_No_Objection_on_draft?= =?utf-8?q?-ietf-tictoc-multi-path-synchronization-06=3A_=28with_COMMENT?= =?utf-8?q?=29?=
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Timing over IP Connection and Transfer of Clock BOF <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 10:29:52 -0000


Many thanks for the thorough review and useful comments.


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mirja Kuehlewind []
>Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 6:39 PM
>To: The IESG
>Cc:; tictoc-
>Subject: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-tictoc-multi-path-
>synchronization-06: (with COMMENT)
>Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
>draft-ietf-tictoc-multi-path-synchronization-06: 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
>for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>Thanks for addressing my comments. I still think this draft reads a little like a
>research paper but it improved. I would still recommend to consider
>informational instead of experimental. If this draft stays experimental, it
>would actually benefit from an own section that describes what this
>experiment is about. Which parts should be evaluated and what are the
>expected outcomes?
>I have one remaining comments  on the security section:
>"The security aspects of time synchronization protocols are discussed
>   in detail in [TICTOCSEC].“
>TICTOCSEC is a reference to RFC 7384 on "Security Requirements of Time
>Protocols in Packet Switched Networks“. As this RFC species requirements, it
>would be much more useful to document how these requirements have bee
>addressed by this proposal rather than just referring to it and leave this
>exercise to the reader.
>And some remaining editorial comments:
>I would still recommend to further shorten the abstract by removing or
>moving the first part, potentially into the introduction instead, and only leave
>this part:
>"This document describes a multi-path approach to the Network Time
>Protocol (NTP) and the
>   Precision Time Protocol (PTP) over IP networks, allowing the protocols to
>run concurrently over
>   multiple communication paths between the master and slave clocks. The
>   multi-path approach can significantly contribute to clock accuracy,
>   security and fault tolerance."
>Also section 3 and 4 could be completely removed or shorten to 2-3
>paragraph that could also be integarted into the introdcution.