> -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Cochran <richardcoch...@gmail.com> > Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2020 1:35 PM > To: Keller, Jacob E <jacob.e.kel...@intel.com> > Cc: linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: Re: [Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH 00/10] Slave event monitoring > > 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
Sounds good. If someone cares in the future they could implement the standard one when they want it for interop. Thanks, Jake _______________________________________________ Linuxptp-devel mailing list Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
