Authors: I agree with Scott's recommendation. Are you willing to consider the change?
(But I have balloted no-obj.) Jari On Feb 3, 2014, at 11:58 AM, Scott Brim <[email protected]> wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Please wait for direction from your document shepherd > or AD before posting a new version of the draft. > > Document: draft-ietf-avtcore-clksrc-09 > Reviewer: Scott Brim > Review Date: 2014-02-03 > IETF LC End Date: 2014-01-16 > IESG Telechat date: 2014-02-06 > > Summary: Ready with a minor issue > > Major issues: none > > Minor issues: > > This is the same version I reviewed at LC. After discussion with the > authors I have changed my question to a recommendation. > > In 6.1.2 and 6.1.3 it says: "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." I have learned that sending this reference clock > specification is not required for the protocol to function. It is for > the offerer's information, so that maybe next time the negotiation > will succeed. > > - Since including the reference clock is not required for the protocol > per se to work, consider making this MUST a SHOULD. > > - In any case, this needs to be justified. Even something as simple as > adding "for the offerer's information" could be sufficient, although > usually more would be expected. > > Scott > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
