Mirja, Many thanks for the thorough review and useful comments.
Thanks, Tal. >-----Original Message----- >From: Mirja Kuehlewind [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 6:39 PM >To: The IESG >Cc: [email protected]; tictoc- >[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] >Subject: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-tictoc-multi-path- >synchronization-06: (with COMMENT) > >Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for >draft-ietf-tictoc-multi-path-synchronization-06: No Objection > >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/ > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >COMMENT: >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Thanks for addressing my comments. I still think this draft reads a little >like a >research paper but it improved. I would still recommend to consider >informational instead of experimental. If this draft stays experimental, it >would actually benefit from an own section that describes what this >experiment is about. Which parts should be evaluated and what are the >expected outcomes? > >I have one remaining comments on the security section: > >"The security aspects of time synchronization protocols are discussed > in detail in [TICTOCSEC].“ > >TICTOCSEC is a reference to RFC 7384 on "Security Requirements of Time >Protocols in Packet Switched Networks“. As this RFC species requirements, it >would be much more useful to document how these requirements have bee >addressed by this proposal rather than just referring to it and leave this >exercise to the reader. > >And some remaining editorial comments: > >I would still recommend to further 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 [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
