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

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

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?
>
>
>