Hi Joel,
thank you for your thorough review and the most helpful comments. I've did
s/proposal/specification/ through the document. As for the section 2.1
would the following text be clearer:
The rules of setting timestamp flags in
Modes field in server greeting and Set-Up-Response messages and
interpreting them are as follows:
o If the Session-Receiver supports this extension, then the Server
that establishes test sessions on its behalf MUST set PTPv2
Timestamp flag to 1 in the server greeting message per the
requirement listed in Section 2. Otherwise, the PTPv2 Timestamp
flag will be set to 0 to indicate that the Session-Reciever
interprets only NTP format.
o If the Control-Client receives greeting message with the PTPv2
Timestamp flag set to 0, then the Session-Sender MUST use NTP
format for timestamp in the test session and Control-Client SHOULD
set PTPv2 Timestamp flag to 0 in accordance with [RFC4656]. If
the Session-Sender cannot use NTP timestamps, then the Control-
Client SHOULD close the TCP connection associated with the OWAMP-
Control session.
o If the Control-Client receives greeting message with the PTPv2
Timestamp flag set to 1 and the Session-Sender can set timestamp
in PTPv2 format, then the Control-Client MUST set the PTPv2
Timestamp flag to 1 in Modes field in the Set-Up-Response message
and the Session-Sender MUST use PTPv2 timestamp format.
o If the Session-Sender doesn't support this extension and can set
timestamp only in NTP format, then the PTPv2 Timestamp flag in
Modes field in the Set-Up-Response message will be set to 0 as
part of Must Be Zero and the Session-Sender use NTP format.
Regards,
Greg
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 8:45 PM, Joel Halpern <[email protected]> wrote:
> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
> Review result: Ready with Nits
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
>
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-time-format-??
> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
> Review Date: 2017-03-02
> IETF LC End Date: 2017-03-15
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
>
> Summary:
>
> Major issues:
>
> Minor issues:
> The wording of the behavioral requirements for signaling in
> section 2.1 is atypical for IETF documents (and in my view makes it
> harder for the reader to follow.) The rules are listed as separate
> rules, but they are actually sequential steps that must be test in
> order, exiting the process if the condition for each step is met. But
> it does not actually say that.
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
> Section 2.3 refers to this as a proposal. It is a specification,
> not a proposal. Please reword.
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
