On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 05:07:05PM +0000, Keller, Jacob E wrote: > Presumably, other implementations won't support this non-portable > TLV. Is there any part of our implementation that ought to support > the official standard?
Yes, and this series already implements the official SLAVE_RX_SYNC_TIMING_DATA. Nothing prevents us adding the official variant of SLAVE_TX_EVENT_TIMESTAMPS in the future, if anybody really wants it. > Or should we attempt to push for improving the standard? Also yes. Already there was something missing from the standard for this optional feature, and I did share that with the IEEE working group already. > I suppose in some sense, since you're only sending this data over > the local unix domain socket it's less of a concern? Right. We can implement what is useful now and lead the way for others to follow. Thanks, Richard _______________________________________________ Linuxptp-devel mailing list Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
