Re: [mpls] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-14: (with COMMENT)

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Mon, 27 February 2017 17:23 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E7DF12A1FD; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:23:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id InZGFC4Z2VXj; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:23:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot0-x22a.google.com (mail-ot0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EF9D12A22E; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:13:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id x10so56127586otb.1; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:13:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=fQrAwxABLPMCn1YaHoRddked/PYNfCq3WJ4+kAL9rJI=; b=mcoO7dWo/yFr68R/G3we+VAKugf7ksRc6CD0GGKdD5aiAXHCg4i8XR093r2gRnVVVH bTr3xcoqCcdgYusoBKXeZlHjOWW7h3FWn5gQiqxc80YVNQovNvO+OkqTrxkY2YVZDyJ2 0Oa3FK+rr9s2iWyZh9AC8f8e8zSfqnTnhTISFtTJdm2dIMpyd/GUO54Uwy+hfBx2GuXR mbsfeeDAAaytd1N1GN6INywo4A+95Nh6kD8t2l3dzjiV5riHR5b2VCZWBlMU5Gv9Eaup 7ws3ozgv0jKm5jhdxHqp61vGaObA6ErXgSDuxuUGkx36kAm73sQSoRyI0cEkr6gdhH4r LgZw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=fQrAwxABLPMCn1YaHoRddked/PYNfCq3WJ4+kAL9rJI=; b=czf9csD9S+d1yazSUXViLeoX3YI0N8+ztGsAvTKEyfJqvNcWjZEbezDiabmutSokXB 4PSNx+JRHBvDJGMX4SKGpApB4jCpvPdsXfYOGZZ0DV83dxCxSRcw44X0pqOStNPyaY44 DBZGX5yIf775l2i7xyi2RSpWcbdZ57bbbcmwsR/6YBp5j/Mq+164nLFID+WQzTogN0ah 0m0ru/VjPbHiAkJqAIoeaVF+ZfLxp36Rav2rPFBg+BDccyCXPXlbZxrzMsqg11P7MbjD pS5vjur8uuFvFFtIHtYtR1ozWGbryafrtaJOKjB8/0vHMsKgnNZkjK2c6VoPwRV/KI3S UztA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39k26X+1HfkDrGyYvtSx4USauZpC0P/FyeZf1b6gv6sFrt/YJyVsJeUc4EnC0turVIGecrFuvNL1C/zVHg==
X-Received: by 10.157.25.18 with SMTP id j18mr3227257ota.128.1488215603934; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:13:23 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.21.21 with HTTP; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:13:23 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAKKJt-c4c8CM77AF1Z61pH6-c4RpsW=YjoiauWNSsCG7o592uA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <148814606376.2949.10868917655692470857.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CA+RyBmXFjsYEmhEPbcWr143GtM0DDDaAoaGrfCL8BNE+F7qTwg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKKJt-c4c8CM77AF1Z61pH6-c4RpsW=YjoiauWNSsCG7o592uA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:13:23 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmUT=xmYw11m5wsypvd2ibSCdgfQOjZM=YknTiYKrRv1Qw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f4030435a8046c01e40549863218
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/9XzYTS3Bd_pepnLN8f76bFqJcjg>
Cc: mpls-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time@ietf.org, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-14: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 17:23:11 -0000

Hi Spencer,
yes, only PTP has defined operation of the transparent clock and how to use
the residence time to improve accuracy of distributed time.

Regards,
Greg

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 9:06 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>; wrote:

> Hi, Greg,
>
> On Feb 27, 2017 09:55, "Greg Mirsky" <gregimirsky@gmail.com>; wrote:
>
> Hi Spencer,
> thank you for your thorough review and the question.
> NTP yet doesn't use transparent clock paradigm but in section 3 G-ACh for
> Residence Time Measurement we've noted that NTP may be one type of TLV and
> have requested appropriate allocation by IANA in the new sub-registry MPLS
> RTM TLV Registry (section 7.2). Thus, if NTP will be enhanced to use
> transparent clock, the RTM over MPLS will be capable to support it.
> We're open to your suggestions to make it clearer.
>
>
> So, is it correct to say that PTP is the only time protocol that uses the
> transparent clock paradigm today?
>
> Spencer
>
> Kind regards,
> Greg
>
> On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Spencer Dawkins <
> spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>; wrote:
>
>> Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-14: No Objection
>>
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>
>>
>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>
>>
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> I'm a bit confused on one point. There's one reference to NTP in the
>> Introduction, everything else is about PTP, but the specification never
>> actually says if this mechanism is intended to be usable for NTP as well.
>> Could that be clearer?
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>