Right, I agree. My point was just that we may be provisioning for something that will come out completely different than what we currently expect. It is kind of like buying the tires before you decide which car you want to buy. :)
Tal. -----Original Message----- From: Doug Arnold [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 11:31 AM To: [email protected]; Tal Mizrahi Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: [TICTOC] [ntpwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls-03.txt There is also some value in having these the treatment of NTP and PTP in one place. //Doug Arnold -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Karen O'Donoghue Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 8:11 AM To: Tal Mizrahi Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [TICTOC] [ntpwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls-03.txt Tal, It is true that developing an NTP option in parallel would potentially be more efficient and coherent; however, we have thus far had no volunteers to work on that document. The current approach is flexible enough to support PTP, NTP, and possibly other timing methods which is a generalization of the solution originally proposed. We welcome proposals and volunteer document editors who wish to pursue the NTP option. Regards, Karen On 10/22/12 4:35 PM, Tal Mizrahi wrote: > Hi Shahram, > > Thanks for the prompt response. > I would suggest to add some text to explain the scope of this draft in the > context of NTP, i.e., your explanation below. > > A question to the WG chairs: if NTP TCs are indeed on the agenda, wouldn't it > be best to define these entities in parallel to the MPLS draft? It seems more > natural, and more likely to produce a coherent mechanism. > > Thanks, > Tal. > > ________________________________________ > From: Shahram Davari [[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 6:46 PM > To: Tal Mizrahi; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: RE: [TICTOC] I-D Action: > draft-ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls-03.txt > > Hi Tal, > > If you recall the Area director asked for generalizing this draft to NTP and > other possible future Timing methods such as a Shim header that can carry > Timing. I know NTP does not have TC, but IETF may add TC in future. Also on > the egress LER the timing Label (defined in the draft) may be used as an > indicator to sample ToD at the port level. > > Thanks > Shahram > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tal Mizrahi [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 7:47 AM > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: RE: [TICTOC] I-D Action: > draft-ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls-03.txt > > Hi Shahram et al. > > What is the motivation for adding NTP to this draft? > Are we planning to define something similar to a correctionField in NTP? > > Regards, > Tal. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of [email protected] > Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 10:28 AM > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: [TICTOC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls-03.txt > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Timing over IP Connection and Transfer of > Clock Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : Transporting Timing messages over MPLS Networks > Author(s) : Shahram Davari > Amit Oren > Manav Bhatia > Peter Roberts > Laurent Montini > Filename : draft-ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls-03.txt > Pages : 36 > Date : 2012-10-22 > > Abstract: > This document defines the method for transporting Timing messages > such as PTP and NTP over an MPLS network. The method allows for the > easy identification of these PDUs at the port level to allow for port > level processing of these PDUs in both LERs and LSRs. > > The basic idea is to transport Timing messages inside dedicated MPLS > LSPs. These LSPs only carry timing messages and possibly Control and > Management packets, but they do not carry customer traffic. > > Two methods for transporting Timing messages over MPLS are defined. > The first method is to transport Timing messages directly over the > dedicated MPLS LSP via UDP/IP encapsulation, which is suitable for > MPLS networks. The second method is to transport Timing messages > inside a PW via Ethernet encapsulation, which is suitable for both > MPLS and MPLS-TP networks. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls-03 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls-03 > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > _______________________________________________ > TICTOC mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc > _______________________________________________ > ntpwg mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg _______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc _______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
