[Ntp] Antw: [EXT] NTPv5 modular architecture

Ulrich Windl <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de> Thu, 23 July 2020 06:13 UTC

Return-Path: <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
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 770723A08B0 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 23:13:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Vgx_UqrXCvjM for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 23:13:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.uni-regensburg.de (mx1.uni-regensburg.de [194.94.157.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CEAF23A08AC for <ntp@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 23:13:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.uni-regensburg.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 857C66000052 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 08:13:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de (gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de [132.199.5.51]) by mx1.uni-regensburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8348600004E for <ntp@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 08:13:46 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from uni-regensburg-smtp1-MTA by gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 08:13:46 +0200
Message-Id: <5F192A98020000A10003A37E@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 18.2.1
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 08:13:44 +0200
From: Ulrich Windl <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
To: "ntp@ietf.org" <ntp@ietf.org>, doug.arnold@meinberg-usa.com
Cc: odonoghue@isoc.org
References: <DB8PR02MB5481403697054ED8A622E8B7CF790@DB8PR02MB5481.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DB8PR02MB5481403697054ED8A622E8B7CF790@DB8PR02MB5481.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/dfKxnLw8GJOJyUqCKZuaFItsY2Y>
Subject: [Ntp] Antw: [EXT] NTPv5 modular architecture
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: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 06:13:55 -0000

Hi!

A few random notes on the block diagram:

* the "config" arrows to management should be bidirectional IMHO, unless the management keeps the complete config (so that it is readable)

* shouldn't there be an arrow between protocol engine and timing engine?

* I feel unsure about hw timestamps being derived from the system clock; wouldn't that be software time stamps then?

* Doesn't the timing engine have to read the system clock as well?

* I'm missing to "external" arrows: That to the network for both, management and network stack. So to say: Will there be another network stack for management, or will it be the same?


On protocol engine:

* I'd delete "for transmission", as it's more the task of the network stack, I guess

* "building packets (to send)" and "determines when to send packets" is basically the same for me, assuming a packet is sent as soon as possible after being handed to the network stack

* Does the timing engine really care about messages not received? IMHO it's part of the protocol engine. Likewise security and message status. In my view the timing engine is fed with timing information only, and maybe it has to handle the fact when it does not receive any.

On timing engine:

* Does the timing engine really select the servers? Isn't that the protocol engine (with information from the timing engine)?

* I'd replace "report statistics to management interface" with "provides performance numbers for protocol engine and management interface"

Regards,
Ulrich

>>> Doug Arnold <doug.arnold@meinberg-usa.com> schrieb am 22.07.2020 um 16:48 in
Nachricht
<DB8PR02MB5481403697054ED8A622E8B7CF790@DB8PR02MB5481.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>

> Here is a slightly expanded version of the modular architecture concept for 
> NTPv5.  Feedback welcome.
> 
> Doug