Hi Scott, Thanks for the clarification.. it helped.
The inclusion of the receivers reference clock in a rejection is intended to allow useful information to be logged and provided to the system operator. An operator should be able to look at a log file (or a packet trace) and understand why the clksrc signaling failed. We did consider just rejecting with no extra information, but felt it would be more useful to offer information that was likely to be useful to the operator. We did not expect the information to be used to re-start negotiation. The motivational discussion didn't make it into the document.. I guess you feel a sentence describing the motivation/expectation would be helpful? What are the mechanics of making a change at this stage: would such a change involve a -10 of the draft or can we do it as a final editorial tweak? - aidan ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Scott Brim" <[email protected]> > To: "Aidan Williams" <[email protected]> > Cc: "draft-ietf-avtcore-clksrc all" > <[email protected]>, "gen-art" > <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, 17 January, 2014 7:22:33 AM > Subject: Re: GEN-ART LC review of draft-ietf-avtcore-clksrc-09 > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 11:57 PM, Aidan Williams > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Scott, > Hi Aidan. Let me try to be clearer. My problem is with the sentence: > "If the answerer rejects the offer because the available reference > clocks are incompatible, the rejection MUST > contain at least one timestamp reference clock specification usable > by > the answerer." > "If the answerer rejects the offer because the available reference > clocks are incompatible, ..." > As you say, in this case there is little prospect that the sender > could usefully start over. Therefore why would the answerer include, > in the rejection, a clock that is usable by him (the answerer)? > "... the rejection MUST contain at least one timestamp reference > clock > specification usable by the answerer." > Either there's no point in the rejection including a reference clock, > or there is. If there is no point, why do you say a reference clock > MUST be included? If there is a point, that means there is some > expectation that the sender might do something with the reference > clock in the rejection. What is that expectation? It would be good to > document it. > Is that clearer? > Thanks ... Scott
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
