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

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

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 <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi, Greg,
>
> On Feb 27, 2017 09:55, "Greg Mirsky" <[e-mail]> 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 <
> [e-mail]> 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?
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>