Subject: [ntpwg] wg last call reminder

From: karen.odonoghue at navy.mil (Odonoghue, Karen F CIV NSWCDD, W13)
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 04:47:17 -0500

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.odonoghue at navy.mil  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ntp.isc.org/pipermail/ntpwg/attachments/20070621/98756eee/attachment.html

---

From: lmontini at cisco.com (Laurent Montini (lmontini))
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 20:29:44 +0200

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.com at lists.ntp.isc.org
[mailto:ntpwg-bounces+lmontini=cisco.com at lists.ntp.isc.org] On Behalf Of
Odonoghue, Karen F CIV NSWCDD, W13
	Sent: jeudi 21 juin 2007 11:47
	To: ntpwg at lists.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

---

From: mayer at ntp.isc.org (Danny Mayer)
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 23:51:00 -0400

> Otherwise version 4 draft is an improvement (from version 3) and ready

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