Re: wg last call reminder

Laurent Montini (lmontini) wrote:
> Hi,
>  
> Removing from my short list the comments Yakov and
Danny already made, 
> I remain (if I understood correctly as a neophyte wrt
NTPv4 draft) 
> with:
>  
> 1) page 29
> Considering text and Figure 17, I believe there are the
following
> errors:
> 
>    A packet is a duplicate if the transmit timestamp T3
in the packet
>    matches the xmt state variable.  
> 
> ==> is that not the org state variable? 
> 
>    A packet is bogus if the origin
>    timestamp T1 in the packet does not match the org
state variable.  
> 
> ==> is that not the xmt state variable?
> 
> Also in the Figure 17, for the consistency, 
>    T1=t1?  (Peer A xmt state variable at t4)
> Changed to 
>    T1<>t1?
> 
> 2) page 34
> Considering Figure 22 and Figure 1 on page 6 I'd have
liked to 
> get a definition of packet mode.
> A.5.1 does not tell much and does not use "packet
mode" term.
> In that context I did not really understand the
relation between 
> Figure 1 and Figure 22.
> 
> Otherwise version 4 draft is an improvement (from
version 3) and ready
> to go to IESG.
> 
> .lm

Except that we were commenting on v6 of the draft and not
v4. Does the
v6 version not answer/fix the issues you raise?

Danny
_______________________________________________
ntpwg mailing list
ntpwglists.ntp.isc.org
http
s://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/ntpwg

Hi,
 
Removing from my short list the comments Yakov and Danny
already made, 
I remain (if I understood correctly as a neophyte wrt NTPv4
draft) 
with:
 
1) page 29
Considering text and Figure 17, I believe there are the
following
errors:

   A packet is a duplicate if the transmit timestamp T3 in
the packet
   matches the xmt state variable.  

==> is that not the org state variable? 

   A packet is bogus if the origin
   timestamp T1 in the packet does not match the org state
variable.  

==> is that not the xmt state variable?

Also in the Figure 17, for the consistency, 
   T1=t1?  (Peer A xmt state variable at t4)
Changed to 
   T1<>t1?

2) page 34
Considering Figure 22 and Figure 1 on page 6 I'd have liked
to 
get a definition of packet mode.
A.5.1 does not tell much and does not use "packet
mode" term.
In that context I did not really understand the relation
between 
Figure 1 and Figure 22.

Otherwise version 4 draft is an improvement (from version 3)
and ready
to go to IESG.

.lm

________________________________

	From: ntpwg-bounces+lmontini=cisco.comlists.ntp.isc.org
[mailto:ntpwg-bounces+lmontini=cisco.comlists.ntp.isc.org] On Behalf Of
Odonoghue, Karen F CIV NSWCDD, W13
	Sent: jeudi 21 juin 2007 11:47
	To: ntpwglists.ntp.isc.org
	Subject: [ntpwg] wg last call reminder
	
	

	Folks, 

	This is a quick reminder that there is a WG Last Call under
way
for the ntpv4 spec. 
	Please review, post any comments, and post your opinion on
the
maturity to the wg mailing list. 
	I would like to extend the last call through next Monday
to
accommodate folks who wish to spend quality weekend time
reviewing the
document. 

	Also, a reminder that the cut-off for new drafts for the
Chicago
meeting is July 2 which is rapidly approaching. A number of
folks have
mentioned specific items that they would like to see
addressed. I
strongly suggest that you submit individual submission
drafts for
discussion at the Chicago meeting.

	Karen 

	***********************************************************
* 
	Karen O'Donoghue 
	+1-540-653-1567 (voice) 
	+1-540-653-8673 (fax) 
	karen.odonoghuenavy.mil  
_______________________________________________
ntpwg mailing list
ntpwglists.ntp.isc.org
http
s://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/ntpwg