Last Call Review of draft-ietf-avtcore-clksrc-09
review-ietf-avtcore-clksrc-09-genart-lc-brim-2014-01-13-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-avtcore-clksrc
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2014-01-16
Requested 2014-01-02
Draft last updated 2014-01-13
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -09 by Scott Brim (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -09 by Scott Brim (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -09 by Derek Atkins (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Scott Brim
State Completed
Review review-ietf-avtcore-clksrc-09-genart-lc-brim-2014-01-13
Reviewed rev. 09 (document currently at 11)
Review result Ready with Issues
Review completed: 2014-01-13

Review
review-ietf-avtcore-clksrc-09-genart-lc-brim-2014-01-13

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
< 

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-avtcore-clksrc-09
Reviewer: Scott Brim
Review Date: 2014-02-03
IETF LC End Date: 2014-01-16
IESG Telechat date: 2014-02-06

Summary: Ready with a minor issue

Major issues: none

Minor issues:

This is the same version I reviewed at LC. After discussion with the
authors I have changed my question to a recommendation.

In 6.1.2 and 6.1.3 it says: "If the answerer rejects the offer because the
available reference clocks are incompatible, the rejection MUST
contain at least one timestamp reference clock specification usable by
the answerer."  I have learned that sending this reference clock
specification is not required for the protocol to function. It is for
the offerer's information, so that maybe next time the negotiation
will succeed.

- Since including the reference clock is not required for the protocol
per se to work, consider making this MUST a SHOULD.

- In any case, this needs to be justified. Even something as simple as
adding "for the offerer's information" could be sufficient, although
usually more would be expected.

Scott