[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
...@gmail.com
To: draft-ietf-avtcore-clksrc all
draft-ietf-avtcore-clksrc@tools.ietf.org, gen-art
gen-art@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, 14 January, 2014 5:20:23 AM
Subject: GEN-ART LC review of draft-ietf-avtcore-clksrc-09
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART
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
-
From: Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com
To: Aidan Williams aidan.willi...@audinate.com
Cc: draft-ietf-avtcore-clksrc all
draft-ietf-avtcore-clksrc@tools.ietf.org, gen-art
gen-art@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, 17 January, 2014 7:22:33 AM
Subject: Re: GEN-ART LC review of draft-ietf-avtcore
Got it! Now that I understand, this is a simple editorial fix. How about
adding , for information. or , for logging.? Something like that.
I leave it to Jari whether you need a new version, but I would tell the WG
what you decide to do in any case. Since it's just editorial and doesn't
change
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-avtcore-clksrc-09
Reviewer:
