Hi Jari,
Yes, we are happy to make changes to address these comments.
- aidan
Sent from my HTC
----- Reply message -----
From: "Jari Arkko" <[email protected]>
To: "Scott Brim" <[email protected]>
Cc: "gen-art" <[email protected]>, "draft-ietf-avtcore-clksrc all" <[email protected]>
Subject: [Gen-art] gen-art telechat review of draft-ietf-avtcore-clksrc-09
Date: Wed, Feb 5, 2014 7:40 PM
From: "Jari Arkko" <[email protected]>
To: "Scott Brim" <[email protected]>
Cc: "gen-art" <[email protected]>, "draft-ietf-avtcore-clksrc all" <[email protected]>
Subject: [Gen-art] gen-art telechat review of draft-ietf-avtcore-clksrc-09
Date: Wed, Feb 5, 2014 7:40 PM
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
(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
Hi Jari, Yes, we are happy to make changes to address these comments.
- aidan Sent from my HTC ----- Reply message ----- From: "Jari Arkko" <[email protected]> To: "Scott Brim" <[email protected]> Cc: "gen-art" <[email protected]>, "draft-ietf-avtcore-clksrc all" <[email protected]> Subject: [Gen-art] gen-art telechat review of draft-ietf-avtcore-clksrc-09 Date: Wed, Feb 5, 2014 7:40 PM
Hi Jari,
Yes, we are happy to make changes to address these comments.
- aidan
Sent from my HTC
----- Reply message -----
From: "Jari Arkko" <[email protected]>
To: "Scott Brim" <[email protected]>
Cc: "gen-art" <[email protected]>, "draft-ietf-avtcore-clksrc all" <[email protected]>
Subject: [Gen-art] gen-art telechat review of draft-ietf-avtcore-clksrc-09
Date: Wed, Feb 5, 2014 7:40 PM
From: "Jari Arkko" <[email protected]>
To: "Scott Brim" <[email protected]>
Cc: "gen-art" <[email protected]>, "draft-ietf-avtcore-clksrc all" <[email protected]>
Subject: [Gen-art] gen-art telechat review of draft-ietf-avtcore-clksrc-09
Date: Wed, Feb 5, 2014 7:40 PM
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
