Hi Aidan, You should look at all LC comments (I saw none and the LC finished yesterday) and at the comments from the AD review (from Richard). To me they look like editorial so you can put a new revision after addressing Richard's comments Roni Even
> -----Original Message----- > From: Gen-art [mailto:gen-art-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Scott Brim > Sent: 16 January, 2014 10:23 PM > To: Aidan Williams > Cc: draft-ietf-avtcore-clksrc all; gen-art > Subject: Re: [Gen-art] GEN-ART LC review of draft-ietf-avtcore-clksrc-09 > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 11:57 PM, Aidan Williams > <aidan.willi...@audinate.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Scott, > > > Hi Aidan. Let me try to be clearer. My problem is with the sentence: > "If the answerer rejects the offer because the available reference clocks are > incompatible, the rejection MUST contain at least one timestamp reference > clock specification usable by the answerer." > > "If the answerer rejects the offer because the available reference clocks are > incompatible, ..." > > As you say, in this case there is little prospect that the sender could usefully > start over. Therefore why would the answerer include, in the rejection, a clock > that is usable by him (the answerer)? > > "... the rejection MUST contain at least one timestamp reference clock > specification usable by the answerer." > > Either there's no point in the rejection including a reference clock, or there is. > If there is no point, why do you say a reference clock MUST be included? If > there is a point, that means there is some expectation that the sender might do > something with the reference clock in the rejection. What is that expectation? > It would be good to document it. > > Is that clearer? > > Thanks ... Scott > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
