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

[Tal Mizrahi <[e-mail]>]

Mirja,

Many thanks for the thorough review and useful comments.

Thanks,
Tal.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mirja Kuehlewind [mailto:[e-mail]]
>Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 6:39 PM
>To: The IESG
>Cc: [e-mail]; tictoc-
>[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>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 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-tictoc-multi-path-synchronization/
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>COMMENT:
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>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.
>