Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-time-format-04
review-ietf-ippm-twamp-time-format-04-secdir-lc-lonvick-2017-03-15-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-time-format |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 06) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
Deadline | 2017-03-15 | |
Requested | 2017-02-27 | |
Authors | Greg Mirsky , Israel Meilik | |
I-D last updated | 2017-03-15 | |
Completed reviews |
Opsdir Last Call review of -05
by Jon Mitchell
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Chris M. Lonvick (diff) Genart Last Call review of -03 by Joel M. Halpern (diff) Genart Last Call review of -04 by Joel M. Halpern (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Chris M. Lonvick |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-time-format by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 04 (document currently at 06) | |
Result | Has nits | |
Completed | 2017-03-15 |
review-ietf-ippm-twamp-time-format-04-secdir-lc-lonvick-2017-03-15-00
Hi, I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. The document is ready with minor nits. The document calls for the change of designation of a field in an established protocol. This is called out throughout Section 2 and will need to be ratified by the IANA in Section 3. The previous documents set the bit to MUST BE ZERO and this document uses it to signal an option to use either the NTP timestamp (still using 0) or a more recently adopted 1588 timestamp (1). The Security Considerations section appropriately names the prior documents and references their Security Considerations sections. Minor nits: The last sentence of the first paragraph of Section 1 is: "And of mentioned solutions will be subject to additional queuing delays that negatively affect data plane clock accuracy." Perhaps should be "Any of the mentioned..." The second sentence of the first paragraph of Section 2 is: "In these procedures, the Modes field been used to identify and select specific communication capabilities." Perhaps should be "...has been used..." I didn't do a thorough read through the document so there may be other minor nits. Regards, Chris