RTP and Leap Seconds
draft-ietf-avtcore-leap-second-08
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2014-03-27
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2014-03-24
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2014-03-21
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2014-01-23
|
08 | Amy Vezza | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2014-01-23
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2014-01-23
|
08 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2014-01-23
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2014-01-23
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2014-01-23
|
08 | Amy Vezza | State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2014-01-23
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2014-01-23
|
08 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2014-01-23
|
08 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2014-01-23
|
08 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup was changed |
2014-01-23
|
08 | Amy Vezza | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2014-01-16
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response' |
2014-01-13
|
08 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot comment] Thank you for adding the clarification |
2014-01-13
|
08 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Stewart Bryant has been changed to Yes from Discuss |
2014-01-12
|
08 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2014-01-12
|
08 | Kevin Gross | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2014-01-12
|
08 | Kevin Gross | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-leap-second-08.txt |
2014-01-09
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2014-01-09
|
07 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot comment] Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS point. |
2014-01-09
|
07 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Brian Haberman has been changed to Yes from Discuss |
2014-01-09
|
07 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Lemon |
2014-01-09
|
07 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo |
2014-01-09
|
07 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2014-01-08
|
07 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot comment] from the response to the opsdir review. Thanks Victor. I appreciate your suggestion and considered addressing it by adding an introductory paragraph to … [Ballot comment] from the response to the opsdir review. Thanks Victor. I appreciate your suggestion and considered addressing it by adding an introductory paragraph to section 5 which would identify the single case where accommodation is recommended. I think, however, your proposed table brings together some other useful information and will help people skimming the document quickly ascertain its applicability. I propose to add the table between second and third paragraphs in section 5 and caption it "Table 2: Leap second accommodation recommendations". I think this positioning makes referencing it in the text unnecessary. Kevin Gross +1-303-447-0517 Media Network Consultant AVA Networks - www.AVAnw.com On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Victor Kuarsingh wrote: > IESG, OPS-DIR and Authors, > > I reviewed "RTP and Leap Seconds" (draft-ietf-avtcore-leap-second-06) for > operational impact. > > Intended Status: Standards TrackCurrent Draft Status: IESG - Special > Request Review > > Summary: This document specifies recommended behaviours for RTP senders > and receivers with reference to leap seconds adjustments to clock reference > sources. The document outlines the problem statement, rationale for update > and provides recommendations for implementations. > > This document is intended to update RFC3550. > > I do not see any negative operational impact with publication based on > what is currently specified in this draft. The document specifics > behaviours which are intended to help alleviate existing operational issues > with RTP senders/receivers which are unable to make adjustments for changes > on sources with respect to leap second adjustments. > > The changes proposed in this document should be beneficial operationally. > > Summary Feedback Points: > > (1) The document provides a clear summary of the problem (Section 1) > (2) The document provides background on the issue and contextual > information (Section 3 - 4) > (3) The document clarifies which clock sources cause the issue (i.e. NTP) > versus non-impacted sources (i.e. IEEE 1588, GPS, TAI). > (4) The document outlines recommendations for RTP implementations which > use “leap-second-bearing” clock sources to avoid operation impact (Section > 5) > > Document Recommendation (trivial): > > The only recommendation I would make - which is not material to the > content - is an added reference/text piece in section 5 on the RTP source > clock deployment models/recommendations. I note this since not all readers > may be RTP implementers, but may be operators who will use this document > for reference. It would be nice if such a reader class could quickly > identify if their deployment requires the RTP implementation updates as > specified in document. > > I was thinking of a list or table which outlines the three source classes > (non wall-clock, non-leap-second-bearing source, leap-second-bearing > source) with a statement if adjustments are required. |
2014-01-08
|
07 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2014-01-08
|
07 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
2014-01-08
|
07 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot comment] Thank you for DISCUSSing with the DISCUSSers. They had the same questions I had. |
2014-01-08
|
07 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2014-01-08
|
07 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot discuss] I am torn between Yes and Discuss. When this is discussion has taken place I will certainly move to yes. "IEEE 1588,[9] GPS … [Ballot discuss] I am torn between Yes and Discuss. When this is discussion has taken place I will certainly move to yes. "IEEE 1588,[9] GPS [10] and other TAI [11] references do not include leap seconds. " There is a subtly in 1588 that it might be useful to call out. Whilst the 1588 clock is TAI based, 1588 does carry leap seconds, which can be used to derive UTC. So there is a risk that an inexperienced user might assume that their 1588 derived clock is LS free, whereas LS are being provided to the application. On the other hand 1588 automatically provides the LS channel you are looking for. The text then goes on to say: "All participants working to a leap-second-bearing reference SHOULD recognize leap seconds" In one sense 1588 is LS bearing, and in another sense it is not. This has a bearing on the resolution of Brian's discuss. I think that it's not so much the reference as the timescale that needs to be called out and the SHOULD ought to be a MUST. |
2014-01-08
|
07 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
2014-01-07
|
07 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot comment] I have no particular problem with this document going forward, but I am left to wonder whether this is solving a *real* problem. … [Ballot comment] I have no particular problem with this document going forward, but I am left to wonder whether this is solving a *real* problem. The document doesn't really explain. Have we actually seen implementations in the field that do bad things, like crash or produce lousy output? I would like to see a paragraph added between the first and second paragraphs of the introduction that says something like, "In the field, implementations have been observed that blah blah blah stutter and drop-outs blah blah blah divide by zero blah blah blah piss off the users..." If this is addressing a real problem, this document is fine. Otherwise, I fear it "fills a well-needed gap", as the saying goes. |
2014-01-07
|
07 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2014-01-07
|
07 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2014-01-07
|
07 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2014-01-06
|
07 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot discuss] I have no problems with the publication of this document and will ballot YES after we discuss a quick point. This should be … [Ballot discuss] I have no problems with the publication of this document and will ballot YES after we discuss a quick point. This should be easy to clear up. Section 5 has the following text: All participants working to a leap-second-bearing reference SHOULD recognize leap seconds and have a working communications channel to receive notification of leap-second scheduling. I am curious as to why this is a SHOULD and not a MUST. All NTP implementations handle leap seconds based on the indicator in the NTP header. In what situations would you expect an implementation to ignore the SHOULD even though they are interacting with leap-second-bearing reference? |
2014-01-06
|
07 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2014-01-05
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] Well written, clear, short and looks useful to me. Good job! |
2014-01-05
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2014-01-02
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Ben Campbell |
2014-01-02
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Ben Campbell |
2014-01-01
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] I found this a very clear explanation and, at least, believed I understood it. |
2014-01-01
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot comment text updated for Adrian Farrel |
2014-01-01
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] I found this a very clear explanation anf, at least, believed I understood it. |
2014-01-01
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2013-12-30
|
07 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2013-12-30
|
07 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] Very interesting. I knew about leap seconds, but not about how time implementations vary in their handling of them. Thanks for the lesson. |
2013-12-30
|
07 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2013-12-28
|
07 | Richard Barnes | Ballot has been issued |
2013-12-28
|
07 | Richard Barnes | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Richard Barnes |
2013-12-28
|
07 | Richard Barnes | Created "Approve" ballot |
2013-12-28
|
07 | Richard Barnes | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2014-01-09 |
2013-12-28
|
07 | Richard Barnes | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2013-12-27
|
07 | Kevin Gross | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2013-12-27
|
07 | Kevin Gross | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-leap-second-07.txt |
2013-12-09
|
06 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2013-12-09
|
06 | Pearl Liang | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-avtcore-leap-second-06, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that, upon approval of this … IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-avtcore-leap-second-06, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that, upon approval of this document, there are no IANA Actions that need completion. I ANA requests that the IANA Considerations section of the document remain in place upon publication. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. |
2013-12-09
|
06 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call (ends 2013-12-09) |
2013-12-05
|
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Victor Kuarsingh. |
2013-11-28
|
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Victor Kuarsingh |
2013-11-28
|
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Victor Kuarsingh |
2013-11-28
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Jeffrey Hutzelman |
2013-11-28
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Jeffrey Hutzelman |
2013-11-25
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Ben Campbell |
2013-11-25
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Ben Campbell |
2013-11-25
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2013-11-25
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (RTP and Leap Seconds) to … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (RTP and Leap Seconds) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance WG (avtcore) to consider the following document: - 'RTP and Leap Seconds' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-12-09. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document discusses issues that arise when RTP sessions span Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) leap seconds. It updates RFC 3550 to describe how RTP senders and receivers should behave in the presence of leap seconds. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-leap-second/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-leap-second/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2013-11-25
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2013-11-25
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | Last call announcement was generated |
2013-11-24
|
06 | Richard Barnes | Last call was requested |
2013-11-24
|
06 | Richard Barnes | Ballot approval text was generated |
2013-11-24
|
06 | Richard Barnes | State changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested |
2013-11-24
|
06 | Richard Barnes | Last call announcement was generated |
2013-11-24
|
06 | Richard Barnes | Ballot writeup was changed |
2013-11-24
|
06 | Richard Barnes | Ballot writeup was generated |
2013-11-18
|
06 | Magnus Westerlund | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2013-11-18
|
06 | Magnus Westerlund | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2013-11-18
|
06 | Magnus Westerlund | This is the write-up for draft-ietf-avtcore-leap-second-06 (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is … This is the write-up for draft-ietf-avtcore-leap-second-06 (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? The requested status is Proposed Standard. This is appropriate as it gives recommendation that in some cases override the behaviors specified RFC 3550 which it updates. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary This document discusses issues that arise when RTP sessions span Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) leap seconds. It updates RFC 3550 to describe how RTP senders and receivers should behave in the presence of leap seconds. Working Group Summary There has solid consensus in the AVTCORE WG to do this work. The WG process has been making good progress with a reasonable amount of persons involved in reviewing and commenting on the document. Document Quality There has been several reviewers that combined make the Shepherd convinced that this document has no substantiative issues. First Colin Perkins has reviewed the RTP/RTCP recommendations. Then Art Allison and John Fletcher has reviewed and commented on the time and clock aspects of this document. The shepherd is not yet aware of any implementation of this specification. Personnel Magnus Westerlund is the Document Shepherd and Richard Barnes the responsible AD. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The shepherd has reviewed the document during WG last call. In the process of performing this write-up he reviewed the draft against the ID-Checklist. Also verified the result of the ID-Nits checks tools. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No, it has been sufficient. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No special review appears necessary. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No such concerns. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. Both authors have confirmed that they have no IPR undisclosed. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosures have been made. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? Strong among a smaller number of individuals. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. The ID checklist has been gone through and issues have been found that has been requested to be corrected. The ID-nits tools flags the following. (Using the creation date from RFC3550, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 2001-11-20) -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) This appears to not be relevant as no text from RFC 3550 has been cited and modified in this update. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No need for formal review. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No such references. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No downward references. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. It updates RFC 3550. This is clear in header, abstract and introduction. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). There are no IANA actions needed. This has been verified by shepherd's review of the full document. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. No IANA registries created. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. Noting beyond ID-nits and IPR disclosure search. |
2013-11-18
|
06 | Magnus Westerlund | State Change Notice email list changed to avtcore-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-avtcore-leap-second@tools.ietf.org |
2013-11-18
|
06 | Magnus Westerlund | Responsible AD changed to Richard Barnes |
2013-11-18
|
06 | Magnus Westerlund | Working group state set to Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2013-11-18
|
06 | Magnus Westerlund | IESG state set to Publication Requested |
2013-11-18
|
06 | Magnus Westerlund | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2013-11-18
|
06 | Magnus Westerlund | Updated write-up and new version resolves last comments. And IPR question answered by authors. Ready for publication request. |
2013-11-18
|
06 | Magnus Westerlund | Annotation tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway cleared. |
2013-11-18
|
06 | Magnus Westerlund | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2013-11-18
|
06 | Magnus Westerlund | Changed document writeup |
2013-11-15
|
06 | Kevin Gross | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-leap-second-06.txt |
2013-10-30
|
05 | Magnus Westerlund | ID Checklist issues found in Writeup and also ongoing verification of IPR disclosure status from Authors. |
2013-10-30
|
05 | Magnus Westerlund | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead |
2013-10-30
|
05 | Magnus Westerlund | Changed document writeup |
2013-10-25
|
05 | Magnus Westerlund | Write-up needed |
2013-10-25
|
05 | Magnus Westerlund | IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call |
2013-10-25
|
05 | Magnus Westerlund | Annotation tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set. |
2013-10-01
|
05 | Kevin Gross | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-leap-second-05.txt |
2013-08-27
|
04 | Kevin Gross | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-leap-second-04.txt |
2013-08-15
|
03 | Magnus Westerlund | WG last call started with last day to comment on the 1st of September. |
2013-08-15
|
03 | Magnus Westerlund | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2013-08-15
|
03 | Magnus Westerlund | Annotation tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG cleared. |
2013-07-14
|
03 | Kevin Gross | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-leap-second-03.txt |
2013-04-24
|
02 | Magnus Westerlund | Annotation tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG set. |
2013-02-19
|
02 | Magnus Westerlund | Comments has been given and author promises an update. He intent to do that in May 2013. When new version is available it is time … Comments has been given and author promises an update. He intent to do that in May 2013. When new version is available it is time for WG last call. |
2013-02-19
|
02 | Kevin Gross | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-leap-second-02.txt |
2012-10-19
|
01 | Kevin Gross | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-leap-second-01.txt |
2012-08-03
|
00 | Magnus Westerlund | Changed shepherd to Magnus Westerlund |
2012-06-21
|
00 | Roni Even | Changed shepherd to Roni Even |
2012-06-21
|
00 | Kevin Gross | New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-leap-second-00.txt |