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

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <> Mon, 27 February 2017 17:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D82E12A237; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:06:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pcW28Fm2jO_h; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:06:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85EFB12A234; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:06:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id v200so40983616ywc.3; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:06:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=MYMBL5xk1vbCWZ9WRGCRjd9p5/lw6e+V9ewBfc94Das=; b=nSIGEz696jKf2WnFKyuTQ7B9SPVeckIOTispaCePbb9jyH8/yLkPUJwgssTG5wSBlW miHY2H0tWLZlhA6BeTZC/7YpL3kQQefzWVLJQg/y9FQhNWk6W2BEJilpQ76yPW40ClpO 0vvUFsaPZyKbMF3e84GqSApuBDCLydkjqwsIjBNBcxlOSDGyYoHIESz7S7akFhI4wsuL f8nH15IidFzcYVDWrIDv6ZaSDb2TiV46BeDIXkOvJ1eSDLmPbbyXvBXfgfp/hNXGP7Nb +WK7qPq4AVCK15oDabRoz9cSSqiGVJ+1KP7i8XEftXJEGPNavhU+HTyDd54/z7ltRGTP 0Dzw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=MYMBL5xk1vbCWZ9WRGCRjd9p5/lw6e+V9ewBfc94Das=; b=iZkU02qltcUtrtRM9667BnMuJxa2R7/BjLqI/LYa1px3o6PbGUrEKxRH24rd98R+6y sXs2wNwZ+hZKSVWsMzLIuCibbdJvCiErlxRDg4c1stZo3euy1aKwlt7MjUD90HmhK3Xn aJbxHN7/Ze1Qq5LJtkOik3Fk5Jp1dDfwwO7Hlhzu/vh0A1Vkzs9yHCjmzGXN0MgmYPuZ z/jCkvqZ74j2MC0s1pBBJ+V0YqWBfXoTAVG0DRerRR3QOS9KL9+jkOGh1XB1JEHj6zZE qwS5Iatpgd2E22LJBHyGcZm0oioMrF32JTldBLQyaJX0WvcUhZpzEjVamTbg3MX4QFgB tL/Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39l4kjrR02YodNCYDANTTWKlN2kYk44kmdcKnGLk/RV/CxQgzwGNyy8k6KHTy99BMkjmmbw7UuWOf1jBsA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id o85mr12328246ywd.347.1488215178764; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:06:18 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:06:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:06:18 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 11:06:18 -0600
Message-ID: <>
To: Greg Mirsky <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11482484146ae9054986193b
Archived-At: <>
Cc:,,, "" <>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-14: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 17:06:21 -0000

Hi, Greg,

On Feb 27, 2017 09:55, "Greg Mirsky" <> 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?


Kind regards,

On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Spencer Dawkins <> 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
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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?