[TICTOC] Comments about draft-ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls-04

Tal Mizrahi <talmi@marvell.com> Tue, 26 February 2013 14:58 UTC

Return-Path: <talmi@marvell.com>
X-Original-To: tictoc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tictoc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AC5621F8867 for <tictoc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 06:58:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.027
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.027 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.571, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7onabQ9orP65 for <tictoc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 06:58:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na3sys009aog116.obsmtp.com (na3sys009aog116.obsmtp.com [74.125.149.240]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8B2621F86A5 for <tictoc@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 06:58:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sc-owa02.marvell.com ([199.233.58.137]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob116.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUSzNkJsalDmosbmyALqyCqXlrQEqSgnu@postini.com; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 06:58:32 PST
Received: from YK-HUB01.marvell.com (10.4.102.51) by sc-owa02.marvell.com (10.93.76.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 06:53:05 -0800
Received: from IL-MB01.marvell.com ([10.4.102.53]) by YK-HUB01.marvell.com ([10.4.102.51]) with mapi; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 16:53:01 +0200
From: Tal Mizrahi <talmi@marvell.com>
To: "Shahram Davari (davari@broadcom.com)" <davari@broadcom.com>, "Bhatia, Manav (Manav) (manav.bhatia@alcatel-lucent.com)" <manav.bhatia@alcatel-lucent.com>, "tictoc@ietf.org" <tictoc@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 16:52:58 +0200
Thread-Topic: Comments about draft-ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls-04
Thread-Index: Ac4UL3Cu/VgfggYwRQ+A8F+WhJpgIw==
Message-ID: <74470498B659FA4687F0B0018C19A89C01A0F95AA219@IL-MB01.marvell.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_74470498B659FA4687F0B0018C19A89C01A0F95AA219ILMB01marve_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [TICTOC] Comments about draft-ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls-04
X-BeenThere: tictoc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Timing over IP Connection and Transfer of Clock BOF <tictoc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tictoc>, <mailto:tictoc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tictoc>
List-Post: <mailto:tictoc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tictoc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc>, <mailto:tictoc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 14:58:38 -0000

Hi Shahram, Manav,

Thanks for tolerating my exhausting comments. :)
I believe in draft 04 you addressed most of the major issues I raised.

I am quoting below some of my comments about draft 03 that I believe are still not addressed in draft 04.
I am sure most of them are just a slip, but if you disagree with some of them I will appreciate if you can respond.

Thanks,
Tal.


Quoting comments about draft 03 that were not fully addressed (quoting from http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tictoc/current/msg01326.html):


1.       The IEEE 1588 uses the term "port". Each PTP "port" has a state, which can be master, slave, or passive. The state is determined according to the BMC algorithm. The BMC algorithm determines whether a port is a slave or a master based on the announce messages received through this port.
In the current draft, I assume a "port" is in fact defined by a specific timing LSP (corresponding to a specific peer BC/OC), and the set of Announce messages received through it. This implies that Announce messages must either be sent through the timing LSP, or somehow be traceable to a specific timing LSP. This must be well defined in the document to allow consistent implementations.


2.       Section 19 currently suggests a few possible solutions. It is important that this document will define a single solution.



3.       Some terms in the document are used inconsistently, for example, the terms "time-stamping" and "timestamping" are used intermittently.


4.       There is some inconsistency about capitalization, for example, the word "Timing" is sometimes capitalized and sometimes not. Since you are using the term "Timing messages" quite often, I would suggest to add it to the terminology section, and to be consistent about its capitalization, whereas if the word "timing" is used on its own lowercase letters would be more appropriate.


5.        "...NTP messages for clock and time synchronization.  The PTP..." --> "...NTP messages for clock and time synchronization. The NTP..."


6.       It appears that some of the sections are only applicable to PTP (e.g., Section 4, Section 18, Section 19). That is reasonable, but it should be pointed out explicitly that these sections apply only to PTP.

Tal.