Hi Peter, Sebastian, 

 

Thanks for the questions. As you can tell (and as the draft admits), this is 
not yet fully developed, and needs a thorough checking through before 
proceeding any further.  The intention was to give a flavor of the kind of MIB 
we envisaged, and to allow other people to comment on the work we have done and 
contribute to it.  

 

On Peter's point, I agree that it is unclear at present whether the MIB is for 
a G.8265.1 Telecom Slave, or a G.8265.1 Slave Only Ordinary Clock instance.  At 
some points I have stated a Slave-only Ordinary Clock instance, partly because 
I was unclear how to accommodate the multiple-instance concept in the MIB 
description.  However, the inclusion of parameters related to the control loop 
imply that the MIB is related to the whole Telecom Slave.  

 

We could look at using a separate MIB for each instance, plus a further one for 
the control loop side, or constructing one MIB for the whole telecom slave. 
This is the right point to have that kind of debate, before the work continues 
too far.

 

On Sebastien's point, there are a number of performance indicators on the 
packet flow that we can consider. We have extensively debated some of those 
parameters in ITU, such as MinTDEV, MAFE, MinTimeDispersion etc.  I would 
expect that when we can agree on some parameters there, these can be included 
in the MIB. For the time being, I have included some initial parameters as a 
placeholder until we can decide which are the most useful ones.

 

Best regards,

Tim

 

 

Tim Frost,

Symmetricom, Inc.

Tel: +44 7825 706952

Email: [email protected]

 

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of 
[email protected]
Sent: 20 July 2010 22:57
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Tim Frost
Subject: Re: [TICTOC] IETF78 (Maastricht) TICTOC + NTP agenda

 

Tim,

 

In addition to the valid questions from Peter, I am also wondering why some 
additional objects which do not correspond to existing attributes in G.8265.1 
are described in this draft (mainly at the end).

 

Among these new objects (which sounds to me like proprietary parameters), one 
can identify the following ones:

   ptpOperationalMinTDEVForward OBJECT-TYPE
   ptpOperationalMinTDEVReverse OBJECT-TYPE
   ptpOperationalMAFEForward OBJECT-TYPE
   ptpOperationalMAFEReverse OBJECT-TYPE

 

Are you proposing that a PTP slave compliant with this MIB would have to 
implement all those objects?

 

Thanks.


BR,

 

Sébastien 

________________________________

De : [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] De la part de 
Peter Roberts
Envoyé : mardi 20 juillet 2010 22:15
À : [email protected]; Tim Frost
Objet : Re: [TICTOC] IETF78 (Maastricht) TICTOC + NTP agenda

Tim,
I had a read through the two documents and I would like a quick clarification 
clarification on the MIB. 

Is the MIB dealing with 
    a G.8265.1 Telecom Slave or 
    a G.8265.1 Slave-Only Ordinary Clock Instance or 
    a IEEE1588 Slave Only Ordinary Clock?

I am guessing that the intent was a G.8265.1 Telecom Slave but the MIB is 
missing some of the aspects of this device (e.g. list of grandmasters).  

Also every object is read-only.   Is this the intent or simply that this aspect 
has not yet been fully developed?

I have some additional comments but I want to understand the scope of this MIB 
first.

Peter R.





On 7/14/2010 3:39 PM, Tim Frost wrote: 

Thank you for the agenda, Yaakov.

For the information of people on the list, Yaakov has allocated a slot for the 
discussion of management of packet-based timing, under which I have submitted 
two internet drafts, draft-frost-tictoc-management-00, and 
draft-frost-tictoc-ptp-slave-mib-00.  See the abstracts below.

Best regards,
Tim

A new version of I-D, draft-frost-tictoc-management-00.txt has been 
successfully submitted by Tim Frost and posted to the IETF repository.

Filename:   draft-frost-tictoc-management

Revision:   00

Title:            Management Requirements for Packet-based Timing Distribution

Creation_date:    2010-07-05

WG ID:            Independent Submission

Number_of_pages: 7

Abstract:

This Internet draft investigates the management aspects associated with 
packet-based distribution of time and frequency using protocols such as PTP 
(Precision Time Protocol, [1]).  It explores some of the issues that need to be 
solved in connection with the management of synchronization distribution.

A new version of I-D, draft-frost-tictoc-ptp-slave-mib-00.txt has been 
successfully submitted by Tim Frost and posted to the IETF repository.

Filename:   draft-frost-tictoc-ptp-slave-mib

Revision:   00

Title:            Definitions of Managed Objects for Precision Time Protocol 
Version 2 (PTPv2) Slave Clocks

Creation_date:    2010-07-05

WG ID:            Independent Submission

Number_of_pages: 35

Abstract:

This draft contains a preliminary MIB definition for a PTP Slave- Only Ordinary 
clock.  This targeted at a slave clock compliant with the PTP Telecom Profile 
described in [G.8265.1].

                                                                                
  

Tim Frost,

Symmetricom, Inc.

Tel: +44 7825 706952

Email: [email protected]

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of 
Yaakov Stein
Sent: 14 July 2010 18:58
To: [email protected]
Subject: [TICTOC] IETF78 (Maastricht) TICTOC + NTP agenda

As I am sure you all know, TICTOC and NTP will be holding a joint meeting at 
the Maastricht IETF.

I have posted the preliminary agenda, based on slot requests received

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/78/agenda/tictoctxt 
<http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/78/agenda/tictoc.txt>  .

I expect that Karen will add some more NTP items before we upload the final 
agenda.

If anyone else is interested in a slot, we still have a bit of spare time 

(but not much if we want serious discussion over the 1588oMPLS issue).

Y(J)S

_______________________________________________
TICTOC mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc

Reply via email to