& Do we know to a certainty that the proposed generalizations will support all (or any) other current and future timing protocols?
Yours Irrespectively, John From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gregory Mirsky Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 9:07 AM To: Shahram Davari Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [TICTOC] NTP in draft-ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls-04 Hi Shahram, and hence are my questions: * Is proposed mechanism required to transport other timing protocols over MPLS network * Is use of PTP LSP to transport NTP messages justified or not Regards, Greg ________________________________ From: Shahram Davari [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 9:01 AM To: Gregory Mirsky Cc: Yaakov Stein; Amit Oren; Bhatia, Manav (Manav); Roberts, Peter (Peter); [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: NTP in draft-ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls-04 Greg, This draft was originally only for PTP, however our Area Director asked the draft to be made more generic so that it can apply to any timing protocol. Regards, Shahram On Jun 7, 2013, at 8:28 AM, "Gregory Mirsky" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: 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]<mailto:[email protected]>; Bhatia, Manav (Manav); Roberts, Peter (Peter); [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[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]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gregory Mirsky Sent: 06 June, 2013 21:23 To: Shahram Davari; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; Bhatia, Manav (Manav); Roberts, Peter (Peter); [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[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
