On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 08:14:52AM +0200, Morten Flå wrote:
> This is how the SMPTE 2059-2 is defined with messageId field set to
> Management Message and action set to Command followed by a
> Organization Extension TLV, so I guess someone did not think this
> through.
Oh man.
I guess we'll have to reject management messages that lack a
management TLV.
Im not directly involved anymore with SMPTE, but I hear that the SMPTE
people recently had a meeting and only just now understand theyve screwed-up
the
specification.
They havent (yet?) decided to do anything about it though..
Isnt this risky as it would be quite normal for Boundary Clocks etc to drop
these
invalid messages?
Perhaps if the SMPTE people saw it written down specifically that you will
definitely drop these bad messages, that might prompt them into action ?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Linuxptp-devel mailing list
Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
