On 9/25/25 10:10 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
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.
Sure. Count me as a voice that would prefer this be said without a MUST,
but I can live with the above.
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.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
