On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 8:09 PM Doug Arnold <[email protected]> wrote:
> *This seems like what RFC 2026 defines as an Applicability Statement. > Should it* > > * say so explicitly?* > > > > This might be characterized as an applicability statement according to RFC > 2026, but I’m not sure that stating this will clarify this draft to > readers. I am open to detailed suggestions. > It's not so much to clarify for readers; it's more that it bolsters the justification for this being a Standards Track document. > *The SHOULD in Section 5 is bare. When might an implementer legitimately > decide* > > * to deviate from the advice given there? Or maybe MUST is better?* > > > > Good point. I propose: > > In Section 5, change: > > “Note that clocks SHOULD always be identified by their Clock ID and not > the IP or Layer 2 address.” > > To: > > “Note that clocks SHOULD always be identified by their Clock ID and not > the IP or Layer 2 address in implementations that might operate in a > network that contains Transparent Clocks.” > Let me put it this way: If I'm writing an implementation that might operate in a network that contains Transparent Clocks, why might I legitimately decide to identify a clock by its IP or Layer 2 address? I suggest that one of the following should be true: (a) There is such a legitimate decision path, in which case the SHOULD is fine, but you should lay out some guidance for me so I know how to make that decision; OR (b) There isn't such a legitimate decision path, and this needs to be a MUST. Absent those, the SHOULD is telling me I have a choice, and you'd really rather I do one thing than the other thing, but not why. I can choose to do the other thing with only arbitrary justification and be fully compliant; are you okay with that? > *The first SHOULD in Section 9 seems to me to be redundant to the MUST > that precedes it.* > > > > The MUST and SHOULD are as intended. However, if you are confused then I > wasn’t clear. I propose: > > In section 9, change: > > “TimeReceiver Clocks MUST be able to operate properly in a network which > contains multiple timeTransmitters in multiple domains. TimeReceivers > SHOULD make use of information from all the timeTransmitters in their clock > control subsystems.” > > To: > > “In a network which contains multiple timeTransmitters in multiple > domains. TimeReceivers SHOULD make use of information from all the > timeTransmitters in their clock control subsystems.” TimeReceiver Clocks > MUST be able to function in such networks even if they use time from only > one of the domains.” > Yes, that's better. > > *Is the SHOULD in Section 10 a restatement of the SHOULD in the last > paragraph of Section 6?* > > > > Yes it is. I propose removing the sentence with the SHOULD in section 10. > Works for me. -MSK
_______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
