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

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Spencer,
thank you for your consideration.
I think that reference to NTP as one of protocols, and it is broadly used
protocol, to synchronize clocks in the Introduction may be justified. I
propose to add a note, as you've suggested, in section 3 that allocation of
the value for NTP payload is forward looking as use of the transparent
clock not yet been defined for NTP.

Regards,
Greg

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi, Greg,
>
> On Feb 27, 2017 11:13, "Greg Mirsky" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
> (Remembering that this is a no-blocking comment)
>
> I'd suggest removing the text reference to NTP in the Introduction, and
> mentioning that you're allocating the value for NTP in Section 7.2, but
> that NTP can't make use of this mechanism unless it adds support for
> transparent clock.
>
> Does that make sense?
>
> Spencer
>
> 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/stat
>>> ement/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?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>