IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TICTOC] Problem statement

Danny Mayer <mayer@ntp.org> Wed, 30 July 2008 11:20 UTC

Return-Path: <tictoc-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: tictoc-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-tictoc-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E4053A6BE0; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 04:20:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: tictoc@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tictoc@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 733563A6BE0 for <tictoc@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 04:20:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tE4n0mtEv-Z2 for <tictoc@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 04:20:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.ntp.org (mail2.ntp.org [204.152.184.138]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E52C3A6BD5 for <tictoc@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 04:20:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 65-86-158-146.client.dsl.net (65-86-158-146.client.dsl.net [65.86.158.146]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1705A398CD; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:21:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mayer@ntp.org)
Received: from [198.22.153.32] (helo=[10.60.98.33]) by 65-86-158-146.client.dsl.net with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <mayer@ntp.org>) id 1KO9jE-00042H-00; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:20:24 -0400
Message-ID: <48904DFB.40901@ntp.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:18:19 -0400
From: Danny Mayer <mayer@ntp.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Doug Arnold <darnold@symmetricom.com>
References: <E8FCF6A615F8334CBD7F2F792C2DF128C75E61@sjmail2.symmetricom.com>
In-Reply-To: <E8FCF6A615F8334CBD7F2F792C2DF128C75E61@sjmail2.symmetricom.com>
X-kostecke.net-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-kostecke.net-MailScanner-From: mayer@ntp.org
Cc: tictoc@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TICTOC] Problem statement
X-BeenThere: tictoc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Timing over IP Connection and Transfer of Clock BOF <tictoc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc>, <mailto:tictoc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: tictoc-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tictoc-bounces@ietf.org

Doug,

This is an IETF working group not an IEEE working group. If 1588 needs a 
  security mechanism, it should be done by IEEE. This working group can 
only deal with security as it applies to the Internet and IETF 
protocols. IEEE 1588 is not an IETF protocol.

Danny
Doug Arnold wrote:
> Comment on TICTOC problem statement: draft-bryant-tictoc-probstat-02.txt
>  
> The need for precise time and frequency transfer in engineered LANs is 
> gernally met by IEEE 1588-2008.  Such networks include high speed 
> printing presses and other industrial automation applications, power 
> utility substation sync, etc.  However the 1588 committee failed to come 
> up with a security mechanism.  So secure time and frequency transfer in 
> engineered LANs could be one of the charters for TICTOC.
>  
> //Doug
_______________________________________________
TICTOC mailing list
TICTOC@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email