On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 09:51:48AM -0500, Robert Sparks wrote: > If it's hard fought for and agreed text than so be it. I don't think a BCP > 14 MUST is the right way to say this, but I can be in the rough. I still > think all you can say about _future_ versions of PTP is that it's expected > that this mechanism can work there.
Yes, there was a lot of discussion about what is and what is not valid PTP. Do you think this would work better? The PTP message MUST conform to PTP version 2 [IEEE1588-2008], PTP version 2.1 [IEEE1588-2019], or any future version of the PTP specification that allows the NTP TLV to be included. > > Hm, I looked at some recent RFCs, but I didn't see any other > > difference. BCP 14 is constistently mentioned once in the > > "Requirements Language" section and then in the two references to > > RFC2119 and RFC8174. > Correct. You've seen the "bit more" - it's a reference to BCP14 not just a > reference to the two RFCs that are in the BCP. Ok, I'll fix that. Thanks. -- Miroslav Lichvar _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
