Re: wg last call reminder

I was talking about NTP version.
I commented version 6 of the draft.

Sorry for the misleading sentence.
.lm


Sent by Good Messaging (www.good.com)


 -----Original Message-----
From:   Danny Mayer [ mayerntp.isc.org">mailto:mayerntp.isc.org]
Sent:  ; Tuesday, June 26, 2007 04:51 AM GMT Standard Time
To:  ;   Laurent Montini (lmontini)
Cc: ;    ntpwglists.ntp.isc.org
Subject:        Re: [ntpwg] 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
>&nbsp;   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.
&gt; A.5.1 does not tell much and does not use "packet mode" term.
&gt; 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
&gt; to go to IESG.
&gt;
> .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