Subject: [TICTOC] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-tictoc-multi-path-synchronization-06: (with COMMENT)

From: "Mirja Kuehlewind" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 08:39:16 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tictoc-multi-path-synchronization-06: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tictoc-multi-path-synchronization/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for addressing my comments. I still think this draft reads a
little like a research paper but it improved. I would still recommend to
consider informational instead of experimental. If this draft stays
experimental, it would actually benefit from an own section that
describes what this experiment is about. Which parts should be evaluated
and what are the expected outcomes?

I have one remaining comments  on the security section:

"The security aspects of time synchronization protocols are discussed
   in detail in [TICTOCSEC].“

TICTOCSEC is a reference to RFC 7384 on "Security Requirements of Time
Protocols in Packet Switched Networks“. As this RFC species requirements,
it would be much more useful to document how these requirements have bee
addressed by this proposal rather than just referring to it and leave
this exercise to the reader.

And some remaining editorial comments:

I would still recommend to further shorten the abstract by removing or
moving the first part, potentially into the introduction instead, and
only leave this part:

"This document describes a multi-path approach to the Network Time
Protocol (NTP) and the
   Precision Time Protocol (PTP) over IP networks, allowing the protocols
to run concurrently over
   multiple communication paths between the master and slave clocks. The
   multi-path approach can significantly contribute to clock accuracy,
   security and fault tolerance."

Also section 3 and 4 could be completely removed or shorten to 2-3
paragraph that could also be integarted into the introdcution.

---

From: Tal Mizrahi <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 10:22:45 +0000

Mirja,

Many thanks for the thorough review and useful comments.

Thanks,
Tal.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mirja Kuehlewind [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 6:39 PM
>To: The IESG
>Cc: [email-masked]; tictoc-
>[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
>Subject: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-tictoc-multi-path-
>synchronization-06: (with COMMENT)
>
>When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email
>addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory
>paragraph, however.)
>
>
>Thanks for addressing my comments. I still think this draft reads a little like a
>research paper but it improved. I would still recommend to consider
>informational instead of experimental. If this draft stays experimental, it
>would actually benefit from an own section that describes what this
>experiment is about. Which parts should be evaluated and what are the
>expected outcomes?
>
>Protocols in Packet Switched Networks“. As this RFC species requirements, it
>would be much more useful to document how these requirements have bee
>addressed by this proposal rather than just referring to it and leave this
>exercise to the reader.
>
>moving the first part, potentially into the introduction instead, and only leave
>this part:
>
>   Precision Time Protocol (PTP) over IP networks, allowing the protocols to
>run concurrently over