Document: draft-ietf-ntp-over-ptp Title: NTP Over PTP Reviewer: Robert Sparks Review result: Ready with Issues
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://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>. Document: draft-ietf-ntp-over-ptp-05 Reviewer: Robert Sparks Review Date: 2025-09-24 IETF LC End Date: 2025-09-24 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: Mostly ready but with a few issues to consider before publication as a Proposed Standard RFC. I appreciate that this work has had such open and careful coordination with IEEE. Major issues: It's been awhile since I dove deeply into NTP, but isn't it possible for responses to be larger than requests in normal operation? This draft requires that the PTP message containing the NTP response MUST NOT be larger than the PTP message containing the NTP request. What's supposed to happen if the NTP response _is_ bigger than the request? Consider either a brief exploration of this, or an explanation of why it won't be an issue. Minor issues: Requiring that a PTP message MUST conform to any future version of the PTP specification doesn't make sense. It borders on the IETF telling IEEE how they can evolve their protocol by implying a requirement that future versions of PTP remain backward compatible enough for this encapsulation to work. While a future where that's not the case is vanishingly unlikely, it's not ours to require. I think the most you can say is that it is expected that this encapsulation will be useful with future versions of the PTP specification without modification. Nits/editorial comments: Please reference BCP14 rather that RFC2119. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
