Re: [Ntp] ntp-over-ptp concerns

Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com> Tue, 19 March 2024 09:52 UTC

Return-Path: <mlichvar@redhat.com>
X-Original-To: ntp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ntp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DB26C14F697 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 02:52:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.103
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.103 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wwFkT7cjK6fF for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 02:52:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84A50C14F70E for <ntp@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 02:52:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1710841969; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=PN/5/mBeoOzrxBmSkTJ9lPv6Y9MNtx865Ue+IcsBjnk=; b=Qw+j4G8piTpGopouTng2MfIuZPgSaR+CBNu0Yx37wnoJRaUvDYIiUVo05RSd3d1UeT2Yr8 61DgVcSie9d9FyarUZHIP2Lo7H7IE5pWE4UZzIAmMRKi+ODFm5YJ0WY2VsacX5380zHc6d gzZAwTPhuYVM/M74a3V0FPw8Z9HemKU=
Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-307-qjZLZCkfOsC7RgvtbbUT1w-1; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 05:52:44 -0400
X-MC-Unique: qjZLZCkfOsC7RgvtbbUT1w-1
Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51BF28007A2; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 09:52:44 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (unknown [10.43.135.229]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61630112132A; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 09:52:43 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 10:52:42 +0100
From: Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com>
To: Rodney Cummings <rodney.cummings@keysight.com>
Cc: Rodney Cummings <rodney.cummings=40keysight.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, NTP WG <ntp@ietf.org>, Doug Arnold <doug.arnold@meinberg-usa.com>
Message-ID: <Zflgai93DduRfWyX@localhost>
References: <DM6PR17MB3484BA12E5E0214094779270832B2@DM6PR17MB3484.namprd17.prod.outlook.com> <ZfG46DseQnstP42z@localhost> <DM6PR17MB3484BAD48E399E34F9099D53832A2@DM6PR17MB3484.namprd17.prod.outlook.com> <Zfha5e_qPafzuhYz@localhost> <DM6PR17MB3484D04B648BBCB46E48F387832D2@DM6PR17MB3484.namprd17.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR17MB3484D04B648BBCB46E48F387832D2@DM6PR17MB3484.namprd17.prod.outlook.com>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.3
X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0
X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/IS15nnGoGARAiiGNINnUwo0xJzU>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] ntp-over-ptp concerns
X-BeenThere: ntp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Time Protocol <ntp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ntp>, <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ntp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ntp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp>, <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 09:52:54 -0000

On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 04:34:28PM +0000, Rodney Cummings wrote:
> As one recent example, refer to this liaison from IEEE 1588 WG to the IEEE 802.1 WG, approved unanimously in the 1588 WG:
>             https://www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2024/liaison-ieee1588-P8021ASebPARcomments-feb24.pdf
> Background: 802.1AS is a profile of 1588 that is layer-2 multicast, and allows for BMCA to be disabled. When BMCA is disabled, the 802.1 WG wanted an option to disable the Announce message as well. 1588-2019 requires Announce in 9.5.8 and elsewhere, so both WGs faced the same sort of problem as we are discussing here. The 802.1 WG has agreed to work with the 1588 WG on the problem, and the solution will ultimately involve cooperative projects in both standards.

Could you please elaborate how this impacts NTP over PTP? In 9.5.8 of
1588-2019 the only thing I see that could be relevant is "A PTP Port
in the MASTER state shall periodically transmit an Announce message",
but NTP over PTP doesn't violate that because it doesn't need a port
to be in the MASTER state, unlike 802.1AS.

I looked at all sentences containing the word "announce" (397
instances), but I didn't see anything that would conflict with NTP
over PTP.

> The point is that if one WG has valid reasons to violate the requirements in 1588, that’s okay, but it requires a project in the 1588 WG in order to loosen the requirements.

Again, in my (probably very limited) knowledge NTP over PTP is not
violating any requirements of 1588 and certainly it's not doing that
intentionally. If you know it is violating any requirements, please
describe how exactly. It might be obvious to you, but it's not obvious
to me.

-- 
Miroslav Lichvar