Hi Miroslav, Thank you for your reply!
Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Nov 25, 2025, at 5:52 AM, Miroslav Lichvar <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 04:47:44PM -0600, Sarah Tarrant wrote: >> 1) As there may have been multiple updates made to the document during Last >> Call, >> please review the current version of the document: >> >> * Is the text in the Abstract still accurate? > > Yes. > >> * Are the Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments >> sections current? > > Yes. > >> 2) Please share any style information that could help us with editing your >> document. For example: > > The terminology used in the document is based on the PTP (IEEE > 1588-2019) standard and NTP (RFC 5905, RFC 7822). TLV is a PTP term. > Extension field is an NTP term. The names of extension fields should > have initial capitalization. > >> 3) Please review the entries in the References section carefully with >> the following in mind. Note that we will update as follows unless we >> hear otherwise at this time: > > I think that should be ok. > >> * References to documents from other organizations that have been >> superseded will be updated to their superseding version. > > There are two versions of the PTP (IEEE 1588) specification in > references, one normative, one informative. The NTP TLV should be > usable in both versions. They have different organization-specific TLV > types (0x0003 vs 0x8000). > >> 4) Is there any text that should be handled extra cautiously? For example, >> are >> there any sections that were contentious when the document was drafted? > > In the "PTP transport for NTP" section there are two paragraphs that > were a bit contentious: > > The one starting with > The NTP TLV MUST be included in a unicast PTP event message. An > event message is required to enable the PTP-specific hardware > > and the one starting with > The PTP version 2.1 [IEEE1588-2019] specification states that "A > domain shall define the scope of PTP message communication, state, > operations, data sets, > >> 5) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this >> document? > > Nothing comes to my mind. > >> 6) This document contains SVG. What tool did you use to make the svg? > > There is no SVG in the document. The ASCII art was hand drawn. > >> 7) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for editing in >> kramdown-rfc? >> If so, please let us know and provide a self-contained kramdown-rfc file. >> For more >> information about this experiment, see: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc. > > I'm not interested in trying kramdown. > >> 8) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for completing AUTH48 >> in >> GitHub? If so, please let us know. For more information about this >> experiment, >> see: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=rpc-github-phase-0-pilot-test. > > Yes, I'd like to try a github-based workflow. > > Thanks, > > -- > Miroslav Lichvar > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
