Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-tictoc-multi-path-synchronization-05: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tictoc-multi-path-synchronization/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "Each NTP clock has a set of N IP addresses. The assumption is that the server information, including its multiple IP addresses is known to the NTP clients." A protocol specification should not make this assumption but describe a mechanism how a client gets to know about these IP addresses. However, this draft does not read like a protocol specification anyway; it rather reads like an informational document leaveraging existing mechanisms to use multiples pathes (see further below). Further, this draft claims in the abstract that this mechanism could enhance security which is not further discussed (should be added to the security considerations section!). However, I would guess that it depends on the choosen combining algorithm if it enhances security or not (or even worsens it). If so that really needs to be further discussed! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This drafts reads rather like a research paper than an RFC. Especailly saying that "The Multi-Path Precision Time Protocol (MPPTP) and Multi-Path Network Time Protocol (MPNTP) define an additional layer that extends the existing PTP and NTP without the need to modify these protocols. " is completely overstating. I really don't see that this doc defines new protocols or a new layer. I would strongly recommend to not give the describe mechanisms a name (like Multi-Path Precision Time Protocol (MPPTP) and Multi-Path Network Time Protocol (MPNTP)) as these are no protocols. I further recommend to publish this document instead as an informational RFC that describes how to leverages multiple pathes without protocol changes. Also section 6 that only gives references to other docs would be acceptable for an informational draft but for a protocol spec. A spec should provide an implementation recommendation by provding a default algorithm. Some editorial commenta: I would recommend to shorten the abstract by removing or moving the first part, potentially into the introduction instead, and only leave this part: "This document describes a multi-path approach to the Network Time Protocol (NTP) and the Precision Time Protocol (PTP) over IP networks, allowing the protocols to run concurrently over multiple communication paths between the master and slave clocks. The multi-path approach can significantly contribute to clock accuracy, security and fault tolerance." Also section 3 and 4 could be completely removed or shorten to 2-3 paragraph that could also be integarted into the introdcution. _______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list TICTOC@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc