Re: EXT_TIME: a new HE for timing information in LCT

Hello Mark,

>Looks good - I have two comments:
>
>- the bits that previously indicated the presence of SCT and ERT should
>just be 'reserved' - I would not anticipate future use without defining
>a new protocol version
>  
>
You're right, "future use" is ambiguous. Remove it.

>- it should be specified that if there are additional fields in the
>EXT_TIME after the SCT, ERT and SLC then these should be ignored by
>receivers, to allow more to be added in future in a backwards compatible
>way.
>  
>
Good point too.

>I can include the proposal in the next LCT draft revision and address
>these comments, so no need to do a new draft of your proposal (if you
>agree with the comments!).
>
>  
>
Yes you can.

>Also - the link to the LCT draft in the I-D directory has (finally) been
>corrected, so could I ask if anyone has comments on LCT generally which
>I should incorporate into the next update (which I am planning to do in
>time for the next meeting). 
>
>Regards,
>
>Mark
>  
>

Best regards,

   Vincent