Thank you all. That's clear about the version:) I sent out a simpler v2 patch with macros used for version. https://sourceforge.net/p/linuxptp/mailman/linuxptp-devel/thread/20210225072041.23458-1-yangbo.lu%40nxp.com/#msg37227104
Best regards, Yangbo Lu > -----Original Message----- > From: Rodney Cummings <rodney.cummi...@ni.com> > Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2021 8:32 AM > To: Richard Cochran <richardcoch...@gmail.com>; Y.b. Lu > <yangbo...@nxp.com> > Cc: Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: RE: Re: [Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH] ptp4l: version preparation for IEEE > 1588-2019 > > Hi folks, > > I'll chime in with some unofficial opinion. > > I agree with everything that Richard says below. 1588 v2.1 is compatible. 1588 > v2.0 implementations ignore the received minorVersionNumber, and will > interoperate just fine if it is received as 1. It is simpler to use macros > for the > versions, and that's conformant. > > Richard asked: > > What is the use case for making the version configurable? > > My educated guess as to why minorVersionNumber is configurable in portDS > is: > In 1588-2008, versionNumber (major version 2) was configurable in > portDS. > For v2.1, when the 1588 group added minorVersionNumber, we probably just > added it to the same location as versionNumber. > Why was it that way in 1588-2008 (v2.0)? > I don't see a strong argument for it personally, but I suppose the 1588 > working group just wanted to allow for maximum flexibility. > In any event, there's nothing that mandates configurability at the port > level. I > think most PTP implementations will use macros at the instance level. > > Yangbo asked: > > It seems IEEE 1588-2019 specified minorVersionNumber in portDS, > > but not in PORT_DATA_SET management TLV data field. It's confusing. > > That was an oversight. I'll submit a maintenance request to add it. > It'll happen at the blazing fast speeds of IEEE SA process (sarcasm), but > it'll > happen eventually. > In the meantime, I think most PTP implementations will report the versions as > read-only from management, so adding minorVersionNumber to > PORT_DATA_SET is a small nice-to-have feature, and there's no problem > skipping it for this patch. > > As an aside, if folks in this list find other bugs in 1588-2019 in the > future, the > 1588 working group recently opened up the maintenance process to folks who > don't attend the meetings: > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsa > groups.ieee.org%2F1588%2Fcontact%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cyangbo.lu% > 40nxp.com%7C7ece806f63404cb9788608d8d924c58b%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6f > a92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C637498099250283906%7CUnknown%7CT > WFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJ > XVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=yKWBOzRAu%2BuWhkBcWgQre4L%2B9 > XvHFvFsNMuVhy6P44o%3D&reserved=0 > > Rodney Cummings > IEEE 1588 Vice Chair > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Richard Cochran <richardcoch...@gmail.com> > > Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 9:18 AM > > To: Y.b. Lu <yangbo...@nxp.com> > > Cc: Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH] ptp4l: version > > preparation for IEEE 1588-2019 > > > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 03:40:38AM +0000, Y.b. Lu wrote: > > > Considering only 1588, v2.1 is backward compatible. > > > > Yes. > > > > > Regarding to many profiles, I only know 802.1AS... One thing I'm > > > unsure is, if a profile is based on a specific 1588 version, does the > > > message must use the corresponding version in header? > > > > I think that if you implement an optional v2.1 feature (like the security > > extension) then you can and should advertise v2.1 in the header. We > > already have some v2.1 optional stuff, and so we can bump up the version > > number. (I've just been too lazy to do that myself, and so I'm glad you > > are doing it!) > > > > > Should the message header use version v2 for AS-2011 profile, and use > > v2.1 for AS-2020 profile? > > > > No, I don't think the minor version (the X in 2.X) conveys any actionable > > information to the PTP network at run time. There are no practical > > standardized constraints on the use of profiles. Sadly, It is up to the > > administrator to get the settings right. > > > > > Another thing I'm unsure is, whether new version of a profile is also > > backward compatible. I hope yes. > > > > Yes. All 2.x versions are compatible, according to 1588. > > > > > So, may I have your suggestion on how to move ptp4l to v2.1? Do we need > > to implement something like deciding 1588 version per profile in program? > > > > Please, just make the v2.1 as macros, fill out the minor field in the > > frames, and forget about dynamic version changes at run time. > > > > Thanks, > > Richard > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Linuxptp-devel mailing list > > Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > > > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefe > nse.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Flists.sourceforge.net%2Flists%2Flistinfo > %2Fl&data=04%7C01%7Cyangbo.lu%40nxp.com%7C7ece806f63404cb97 > 88608d8d924c58b%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C > 637498099250283906%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAw > MDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sda > ta=C%2FDKGuVa6idBRkz%2FR9REVu25nDOJPRCi%2B2s9pz3Qm8U%3D& > reserved=0 > > inuxptp-devel__;!!FbZ0ZwI3Qg!6JmeTb- > > Ug48qhqib23EZaM53rJjawM92zHIQEYgIOVFFghe8tHHtE2uc7whaVX5tGA$ _______________________________________________ Linuxptp-devel mailing list Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
