Yaakov,
I'm rather sceptical of using "If you build it, he will come" as protocol
development guiding principle. Personally I prefer KISS.
Regards,
Greg
________________________________
From: Yaakov Stein [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 7:55 AM
To: Gregory Mirsky; Shahram Davari; [email protected]; Bhatia, Manav (Manav);
Roberts, Peter (Peter); [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: NTP in draft-ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls-04
Greg
This version makes the mechanism more general so that in future other
time-sensitive protocols
(NTP, delay measurement OAM, generic header for MPLS) could avail themselves of
its timestamping/correction features.
It is true that the only real case so far is 1588.
Y(J)S
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Gregory Mirsky
Sent: 06 June, 2013 21:23
To: Shahram Davari; [email protected]; Bhatia, Manav (Manav); Roberts, Peter
(Peter); [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [TICTOC] NTP in draft-ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls-04
Dear Authors, et al.,
The draft-ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls-04 is currently titled as "Transporting
Timing messages over MPLS Networks" and states that both timing synchronization
protocols, PTP and NTP, require use of PTP LSP to transport timing messages
over an MPLS network. After reading RFC 5905 I am not sure that PTP LSP, with
its constraints and additional complexity, is required to transport NTPv4
messages over an MPLS network. And first paragraph in Section 3 Problem
Statement of draft-ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls-04 explains motivation for the PTP
as
"There is a need to transport Timing messages over MPLS networks while
supporting the Transparent Clock (TC), Boundary Clock (BC) and Ordinary Clock
(OC) functionality in the LER and LSRs in the MPLS network."
but says nothing of a kind about NTP.
Regards,
Greg
_______________________________________________
TICTOC mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
