Jim,
Agree in principle. I would *strongly* encourage
people to get
comments to the editors or the mailing list by February 23.
That will
give the editors sufficient time to incorporate changes or
engage people
in discussions on issues before making changes prior to the
draft deadline.
Regards,
Brian
Jim Martin wrote:
> Dr Mills,
> Thanks very much for starting the review. Your previous
comments were
> very helpful in cleaning things up quite a bit. From
todays comments,it
> seems there's more to be done, so I'd be happy to work
with you in
> whatever way is easiest.
>
> As for the attribution, I think we'd be happy to
reference your book as
> a non-normative informational reference, and your
earlier report should
> indeed be mentioned in the acknowledgments.
>
> On a more general note to all list members, I just want
to continue to
> stress the editing teams desire to finish up this
document in a timely
> manner. To that end, I again ask that people review
and comment on the
> -04 draft and allow us to come up with a solid -05
before the Prague cut
> off. That means getting reviews back with specific,
detailed comments
> before February 26th, which would give the editors one
week to integrate
> the changes and make the draft submission deadline.
Karen, Brian, do you
> agree?
>
> - Jim
>
> On Feb 1, 2007, at 11:00 AM, David L. Mills wrote:
>
>> Guys,
>>
>> I've reviewed about a third of the document and
made lots and lots of
>> markups. There are misplaced tables, figure
descripancies and figure
>> errors. These are all fixable, but does call into
question the last
>> call status. This is definitely not in last call
status. The most
>> serious problems are inconsistent variable names.
>>
>> It would be a serious effort to list each and every
markup; there are
>> dozens and dozens of them. What I propose is to
mark up a copy of the
>> current document in ASCII and return it for
diffing, further markup
>> and reformatting. I can do the text part, but not
the table and figure
>> references and tables and figures themselves.
>>
>> I could simply send the paper markup, but even this
is a lot more work
>> than I would like. I would rather speed through the
edit with my
>> favorite eye-friendly editor and search and destroy
inconsistencies as
>> I find them.
>>
>> It would be polite to reference my earlier report
as a source of much
>> information included in the RFC. It would be of
considerable help to a
>> serious implementer to point out, maybe in a
footnote, the detailed
>> rationale and performance analysis for some of the
more intricate
>> algorithms can be found in my book and/or the NTP
website.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> Odonoghue, Karen F CIV NSWCDD, W13 wrote:
>>> Thanks Harlan!
>>>
>>> Karen
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Harlan Stenn <stenn ntp.isc.org>
>>> To: Brian Haberman <brianinnovationslab.net>
>>> CC: Harlan Stenn <stennntp.isc.org>; Odonoghue, Karen F CIV NSWCDD,
>>> W13; ntpwgntp.isc.org <ntpwgntp.isc.org>
>>> Sent: Wed Jan 31 21:48:04 2007
>>> Subject: Re: [ntpwg] updated ntpv4 draft
available
>>>
>>> Brian,
>>>
>>> I've updated http://ntp.isc.org/IETF
with the mailing list info.
>>>
>>> H
>>>
>>>
------------------------------------------------------------
------------
>>>
>>>
_______________________________________________
>>> ntpwg mailing list
>>> ntpwglists.ntp.isc.org
>>> http
s://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/ntpwg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ntpwg mailing list
>> ntpwglists.ntp.isc.org <mailto:ntpwglists.ntp.isc.org>
>> http
s://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/ntpwg
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> ntpwg mailing list
> ntpwglists.ntp.isc.org
> http
s://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/ntpwg
_______________________________________________
ntpwg mailing list
ntpwglists.ntp.isc.org
http
s://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/ntpwg
|
Brian,
On re-review I found additional serious errors in the
draft.
1. Figure numbering is inconsistent and wrong in places.
Figures 1 and 4
are the same diagram.
2. The skeleton appendix is all messed up. Some tokens are
joined, some
lines are missing and some are broken in the middle of a
token. There is
a block of about 20 lines missing in the middle of a
routine.
3. You guys did a commendable job in bashing the tables,
which look just
fine, and the figures, but some figures seriously resist
bash and are
really hard to decipher. One of the most important figures,
that for the
poll process, is missing.
4. Some variable names are confusing and some are
inconsistent. For
instance, the naming convention for upper case Greek is
sometimes to
precede the lower case name with cap, other cases simply
capitalize the
Greek name. I never did figure out where the variable varphi
came from
or that the prefix var means. There are several misuses of
the Greek
names phi and psi.
5. Reading carefully for content, there are several cases
where the text
is just plain wrong. Some of that is my fault in the
original, some of
it is lost in translation.
6. There are several places where figures and tables are
broken between
pages, but that's a formatting issue, presumably easily
fixed.
Well, that's the bad news. Now for what I hope is good
news.
I spent the last four days carefully reading and revising
the text,
repairing and verifying from the original the skeleton and
revising the
variable names for consistency and correctness. I took out
all the
Postel formatting, which would be useless anyway, removed
the more
obnoxious figures and revised the text to emphasize the
skeleton for
detail rather than the figures. Where figures really did
help, I left
them in.
ALong the way, I renumbered the tables and figures and left
a list of
each just before the document. I checked the table and
figure referenced
in the text and corrected what broke. I assume you can stuff
the lists
in at the right place and have your document processor do
the formatting
and page numbering.
I read every sentence in the draft and considered whether it
was
necessary, accurate or poorly written. I read the whole
thing in part
and in whole several times. Just like I did for my book.
I pulled out all references to my book and put a note near
the beginning
that additional information is available in the book, the
UDel report
and the web site.
I have a few residual concerns.
1. Those considering SNTP viz. full NTP will need to read up
through the
end of the on-wire section and they might not have the
patience for
that. Perhaps mention of this should be early in the
presentation.
2. There remain a few inconsistencies between the variable
names defined
in the text and in those defined in the appendix. I am too
exhausted to
fix that. In any case the text is consistent and the
appendix is consistent.
3. While I fixed the little broken things with the tables,
the figures
might be improved. I invite the graphic artists among us to
help with that.
My expectation is that the text itself without the skeleton
is
sufficient for most folks who only want to know how it works
and not the
details. I read it through with this in mind and it works
for me. The
bottom line is whether a skilled programmer can engulf the
thing and be
able to implement a conforming implementation and verify
with the
reference implementation. I invite discussion on this
point.
The latest draft is attached. It is a bit smaller than
before, since I
pulled out some extraneous material in the clock discipline
section. It
is in the classic form of one sentence per paragraph, which
should be
easy to format. May I suggest this as the basis for comments
and markup
and save the formatting for the final draft?
If you wish, I can do the markup, either in response to
general guidance
or specific typos. I encourage this, as the ancient text
editor I use
(word5!) is eye-friendly for folks with dim vision and
modern editors
are not. I'm not sure if diff works with long lines, but I
do reserve
the right to fix broken things that I might find myself.
If/when we all agree, you or designate can do the magic
reformatting and
distribute for last call. This can all happen by the
deadline.
Dave
Brian Haberman wrote:
> Jim,
> Agree in principle. I would *strongly* encourage
people to get
> comments to the editors or the mailing list by February
23. That will
> give the editors sufficient time to incorporate changes
or engage people
> in discussions on issues before making changes prior to
the draft deadline.
>
> Regards,
> Brian
>
>
> Jim Martin wrote:
>
>>Dr Mills,
>>Thanks very much for starting the review. Your
previous comments were
>>very helpful in cleaning things up quite a bit. From
todays comments,it
>>seems there's more to be done, so I'd be happy to
work with you in
>>whatever way is easiest.
>>
>>As for the attribution, I think we'd be happy to
reference your book as
>>a non-normative informational reference, and your
earlier report should
>>indeed be mentioned in the acknowledgments.
>>
>>On a more general note to all list members, I just
want to continue to
>>stress the editing teams desire to finish up this
document in a timely
>>manner. To that end, I again ask that people review
and comment on the
>>-04 draft and allow us to come up with a solid -05
before the Prague cut
>>off. That means getting reviews back with specific,
detailed comments
>>before February 26th, which would give the editors
one week to integrate
>>the changes and make the draft submission deadline.
Karen, Brian, do you
>>agree?
>>
>>- Jim
>>
>>On Feb 1, 2007, at 11:00 AM, David L. Mills wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Guys,
>>>
>>>I've reviewed about a third of the document and
made lots and lots of
>>>markups. There are misplaced tables, figure
descripancies and figure
>>>errors. These are all fixable, but does call
into question the last
>>>call status. This is definitely not in last call
status. The most
>>>serious problems are inconsistent variable
names.
>>>
>>>It would be a serious effort to list each and
every markup; there are
>>>dozens and dozens of them. What I propose is to
mark up a copy of the
>>>current document in ASCII and return it for
diffing, further markup
>>>and reformatting. I can do the text part, but
not the table and figure
>>>references and tables and figures themselves.
>>>
>>>I could simply send the paper markup, but even
this is a lot more work
>>>than I would like. I would rather speed through
the edit with my
>>>favorite eye-friendly editor and search and
destroy inconsistencies as
>>>I find them.
>>>
>>>It would be polite to reference my earlier
report as a source of much
>>>information included in the RFC. It would be of
considerable help to a
>>>serious implementer to point out, maybe in a
footnote, the detailed
>>>rationale and performance analysis for some of
the more intricate
>>>algorithms can be found in my book and/or the
NTP website.
>>>
>>>Dave
>>>
>>> Odonoghue, Karen F CIV NSWCDD, W13 wrote:
>>>
>>>>Thanks Harlan!
>>>>
>>>>Karen
>>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: Harlan Stenn <stennntp.isc.org>
>>>>To: Brian Haberman <brianinnovationslab.net>
>>>>CC: Harlan Stenn <stennntp.isc.org>; Odonoghue, Karen F CIV NSWCDD,
>>>>W13; ntpwgntp.isc.org <ntpwgntp.isc.org>
>>>>Sent: Wed Jan 31 21:48:04 2007
>>>>Subject: Re: [ntpwg] updated ntpv4 draft
available
>>>>
>>>>Brian,
>>>>
>>>>I've updated http://ntp.isc.org/IETF
with the mailing list info.
>>>>
>>>>H
>>>>
>>>>--------------------------------------------
----------------------------
>>>>
>>>>____________________________________________
___
>>>>ntpwg mailing list
>>>>ntpwglists.ntp.isc.org
>>>>http
s://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/ntpwg
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>ntpwg mailing list
>>>ntpwglists.ntp.isc.org <mailto:ntpwglists.ntp.isc.org>
>>>http
s://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/ntpwg
>>
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------
--------------------
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>ntpwg mailing list
>>ntpwglists.ntp.isc.org
>>http
s://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/ntpwg
_______________________________________________
ntpwg mailing list
ntpwglists.ntp.isc.org
http
s://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/ntpwg
|
