Re: [TICTOC] PTP Enterprise Profile draft

Stefano Ruffini <stefano.ruffini@ericsson.com> Mon, 04 March 2013 16:20 UTC

Return-Path: <stefano.ruffini@ericsson.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 06BC021F8922 for <tictoc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 08:20:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.247
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.247 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_OBFUSCATE_05_10=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DoHjtzj17-yw for <tictoc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 08:19:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailgw7.ericsson.se (mailgw7.ericsson.se [193.180.251.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE94E21F8910 for <tictoc@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 08:19:58 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-b7f0d6d000007e61-65-5134c9adfd06
Received: from ESESSHC024.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw7.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 94.DB.32353.DA9C4315; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 17:19:57 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ESESSMB301.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.208]) by ESESSHC024.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.90]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 17:19:57 +0100
From: Stefano Ruffini <stefano.ruffini@ericsson.com>
To: Doug Arnold <darnold@symmetricom.com>, "tictoc@ietf.org" <tictoc@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: PTP Enterprise Profile draft
Thread-Index: Ac4TohE9Bn+n7v+ZSSawlZfc1qnkeQFUaWVw
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 16:19:55 +0000
Message-ID: <1B5CAFEB4D81154AA0F020783784C315091C75@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se>
References: <D2CC4074A4E35B43A4EE2CA7859D567B75169077@SJC-MBX-01.symmetricom.com>
In-Reply-To: <D2CC4074A4E35B43A4EE2CA7859D567B75169077@SJC-MBX-01.symmetricom.com>
Accept-Language: it-IT, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.16]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_1B5CAFEB4D81154AA0F020783784C315091C75ESESSMB301ericsso_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrOLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvje7akyaBBj/fa1hsX3+P1eJvcw+7 A5PHkiU/mTw+rH7EHsAUxWWTkpqTWZZapG+XwJXx98MC1oLL2RXHNh9laWCcEt/FyMkhIWAi ceBOLzOELSZx4d56NhBbSOAQo8TqM+ldjFxA9mJGidvXbjKBJNiAGp4vXg1miwj4SexrbmcE sYUFNCXuXL/BCBHXkjiy/iczhG0ksencItYuRg4OFgEViaZ5giBhXgFviQ8z9jJC7AqUmHzi NNheToEgiQMbboPFGQVkJSbsXgRmMwuIS9x6Mp8J4k4BiSV7zkPdLCrx8vE/VghbUWLn2XZm iPp8iWvnr7FA7BKUODnzCcsERpFZSEbNQlI2C0kZRFxP4sbUKWwQtrbEsoWvmSFsXYkZ/w6x IIsvYGRfxciem5iZk15uvokRGDkHt/w22MG46b7YIUZpDhYlcd5w1wsBQgLpiSWp2ampBalF 8UWlOanFhxiZODilGhjXPTz0vSivsXL7u6vb0gMOTndiOX5c3CwhtvVHT7Ghnu+WfTlejZE8 Xutf+hx0YN7itHcez4Yb1tXXLM/9VL72dPnH0mU3/3B/Z4r/fa17rlqbymOG7G+TKx++tpQ+ K7rhVV2lUbVKSpfm/NACngMZBTsec9VdLum/qfj71jKGGZkKfB1PJtsqsRRnJBpqMRcVJwIA TpZsimoCAAA=
Subject: Re: [TICTOC] PTP Enterprise Profile draft
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: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 16:20:01 -0000

Hi Doug,

thanks for your draft .

There are a few points that I think would need some clarification.

1) As also mentioned at last tictoc meeting, there is a risk of multiplication of profiles.
It is not fully clear in the Introduction what is so specific to enterprise networks to requiring the definition of a specific profile.

2) the proposed profile would support a combinations of various options (e.g. various modes defined in section 6) but the task of a profile should normally also be to minimize the number of IEEE1588 options. Are all these options really required ?

3) section 4 indicates a target requirement of 1 us : is there a reference for that?

4) It should be noted that the performance (e.g. 1 us) can not be guaranteed by a profile as such.
Other aspects, such as network reference model, clock characteristics, also have to be defined in order to provide some guarantee on the achievable performance.
How are these planned to be addressed? Will it make reference to ITU-T recommendations?

5) Concerning the "Hybrid" and "Unicast" mode in section 6.3 (see also remark from Laurent on the confusing terminology used), in case of "partial support" , the potential risk of adiditonal asymmetries should be mentioned (see also Appendix I in G.8265.1) .
This is not an issue in case of frequency sync but it is in case of time sync.

Best Regards
Stefano

________________________________
From: tictoc-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tictoc-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Doug Arnold
Sent: lunedì 25 febbraio 2013 22.52
To: tictoc@ietf.org
Subject: [TICTOC] PTP Enterprise Profile draft

Here is a first cut at a draft of a PTP profile foe enterprise networks.  Any feedback/suggestions would be much appreciated.

I enclose both a MS Word version and a pure text version, since I used the Joe Touch's template.

//Doug