[Ntp] WG LC for draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Wed, 09 January 2019 03:53 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.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 031F0129C6A; Tue, 8 Jan 2019 19:53:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t4S6nXJWIBUs; Tue, 8 Jan 2019 19:53:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x12c.google.com (mail-lf1-x12c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E9B8129AB8; Tue, 8 Jan 2019 19:53:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x12c.google.com with SMTP id y11so4582425lfj.4; Tue, 08 Jan 2019 19:53:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=PtcgZHXm7DdAq5F5u3boV5HcM2BOBL+3s6VJy6Sztx4=; b=Qf0STfsDD86Ic1YhNQdiY2m6sNnG2OtFjnVaskI4cLbXs5YmUHJJ2c8WpXGAr015g0 7a6x++WbnflzjJFjAgS9j7XZX9wE8FUiAV6Kbb8oovzsvPx4cwFl9KziH8Wepf6AW5DA j+T4La64nqtquLEUbDpRPZYFlhkSjOCYd15VIQjPEJHjzIAeBhiCA2EIeW+GZUoTGMAM iGdTsDOrMvz6sgq2USyVZA8dkLMl3Wo80xvnWe14rlzWpXajzRKbP9Rwo6sUIl/Bzold xDaoD8j75fOK7fMP0weyZtBTv3s/cn1B6czJwdN3cn/O4H38zX4+IYBrM3efUWWE+lHE O11g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=PtcgZHXm7DdAq5F5u3boV5HcM2BOBL+3s6VJy6Sztx4=; b=uiskQxHMcp/nAeOFhmjPu6FhKrwR1OBoo6kPp7JgXzFH5wRh4OYAMbZ8vdy6W4Vm/x zDbCD//5eYZUEsRmfEq9SSvPYBxyZzj//nNRUI25zpDNlghNOIRaOQAqon348T3w6g+D i1iag5G8wz+si/SxiMW+qFQr1f5b5Z+0BiilCYjQEQVzpYFjReF0ssotl89f6cAcY5Cj qJpxuRixBfLbOY4MBXCcggKvxCTJp54yu5Qkegm2pFuq3jNg4Q+5InMKl1UHrJq0MNGY 7Oq8nxVCk09jK5hTkpBqvzjoakznB310NhpO5QiCKlxQUyC3yJcm7ph0XUB4WLTv+PPs lsyw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukfhHqhyweWKkrJbPv6+dNx2goeHStHYbeslSwOEwXeDOlRBauzq Nn9YglJZyOWimNhdSbHbkPdmgoHmfW1LdgCOLwx+Bw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN6wIPuaqJPNDKJM4dCsKzYb/HYbF9vi5qc+gwfuNmc/YCkAL0UxilPAg4C9EHYHb4Tm0gvSlEPRILz1djdP9as=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:574d:: with SMTP id l74mr2394058lfb.5.1547005982779; Tue, 08 Jan 2019 19:53:02 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2019 19:52:51 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmWgQVVXv=ZntuNECjxgG-JdHCWD_ux9FKeR=9ihOOu-uw@mail.gmail.com>
To: draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps@ietf.org, ntp@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000011b005057efe66cd"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/P6nXhBcPv9RZQluM6Y5qvfrWAGc>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 09 Jan 2019 10:55:18 -0800
Subject: [Ntp] WG LC for draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps
X-BeenThere: ntp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <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: Wed, 09 Jan 2019 03:53:10 -0000

Dear Authors, et al.,
happy New Year!
Apologies for the belated response.
Firstly, I support the publication of this document and thank the authors
for their work.
Secondly, I have several comments to share, all are non-blocking and would
appreciate you consider them as WG LC comments:

   - "binary-encoded timestamp format" as the alternative to the clear text
   format may be better than "packet timestamp" term to characterize the
   subject of the document;
   - discussion of decisions, design choices that affect timestamp accuracy
   and timestamp precision is very important but I don't see it in the
   document. Perhaps, at this stage, references to the accuracy and the
   resolution can be removed from the text to be discussed in another document
   in the future;
   - regarding the number of timestamp formats supported by the new
   protocol. I agree with your view that usually one format should be used.
   But there could be scenarios that systems have different wall clocks, i.e.,
   their native time format. In such cases, it is advantageous to enable
   collection of the timestamp in the native format, NTP or PTP. I think that
   the document should mention that multiple binary-encoded timestamp formats
   may be used;
   - the table in section 6 presents RFC 8186 as supporting only PTP
   Truncated format for timestamps in TWAMP Test packet. Actually, with the
   RFC 8186 TWAMP Session-Sender and Session-Reflector may use either NTP
   64-bit or PTP (capability advertisement and negotiation in TWAMP-Control).


Regards,
Greg