Re: [TICTOC] Enterprise profile update

Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com> Wed, 09 April 2014 13:39 UTC

Return-Path: <richardcochran@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tictoc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tictoc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B6F61A02C6 for <tictoc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 06:39:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 Z-KvCPddc89C for <tictoc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 06:39:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ee0-x232.google.com (mail-ee0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c00::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 327ED1A02C5 for <tictoc@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 06:39:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ee0-f50.google.com with SMTP id c13so1890013eek.23 for <tictoc@ietf.org>; Wed, 09 Apr 2014 06:39:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=/TcOfOVwK2T3KsuUi0Guz7mnfAPWSF6TOEo3v7IxlpM=; b=N9Fay3zBWGCkgCeGqPFnjUvUZ5rJpIBFe0YTGs/4ETuPfAyo95K070voufPfvEm25Z 08oTgASnQzm0081GX5mVL6fM/LaspQ6telhlYnWQr37hiPWAi9MAWWXWTkct2fZ91oAh lvLFS0kdVo8dTyL+Cr/gJOPGl7BbvT1uts8/MGQqY9ZFEu1uVWDDwQ65QslI4CnBC/OJ 5+LbjK3dobCOYUSUX/XPHVyogbQgXixG2QsDxaNZig7rtUALvtyuret7N1UuTCYxzI0q AXllzCQkJLm0dzhA8cer9hwmPAnSTQgXJ9JswFX7fSLxdeGsuZCUgG0YGhDn30c6XeS4 T8fA==
X-Received: by 10.15.83.68 with SMTP id b44mr10894196eez.11.1397050772140; Wed, 09 Apr 2014 06:39:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from netboy (089144206019.atnat0015.highway.bob.at. [89.144.206.19]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id h47sm2388998eey.13.2014.04.09.06.39.27 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 09 Apr 2014 06:39:30 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 15:39:22 +0200
From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>
To: "Meyer, Peter" <Peter.Meyer@microsemi.com>
Message-ID: <20140409133922.GA6719@netboy>
References: <CACQYgzE106JaKArgc=3HKkKcrdvSy5PmK-A0=_ZMdfrFUJbrtQ@mail.gmail.com> <20140405112034.GM22106@netboy> <20140405133748.GB4566@netboy> <CALw1_Q3hNRNpHzQ=1z0XRTqvcvm2W7=Gm_ZWa2UJT-BqYTvmZw@mail.gmail.com> <CF68E7A8.7488B%lmontini@cisco.com> <1D3F6A7C-AD27-4A63-9F63-41D9929AE285@owczarek.co.uk> <20140408144527.GA5087@netboy> <CAHyFsxmfCsJtP4+PwKyRciPHBQuZw9ONDBPtOkBSqup1P2z_Rw@mail.gmail.com> <20140409051116.GA4520@netboy> <13F67EA88BD57F4DB6E764F4D6188C771B3FBEB2@aussrvexchmbx1.microsemi.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <13F67EA88BD57F4DB6E764F4D6188C771B3FBEB2@aussrvexchmbx1.microsemi.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tictoc/RakL28aIxg6u6moDJS6qC3izyBU
Cc: "tictoc@ietf.org" <tictoc@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TICTOC] Enterprise profile update
X-BeenThere: tictoc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 13:39:34 -0000

On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 07:29:15AM +0000, Meyer, Peter wrote:
> 
> Please note ITU-T has standardized Telecom Profile for Frequency using unicast negotiation.  It is also very likely the Telecom Profile for Partial On-Path Phase (under development) will also use unicast negotiation.   I would think it very unlikely / not conceivable that unicast negotiation will be removed in future editions of IEEE1588.

So if 16.1 is in current use by other profiles, then the enterprise
profile should also make use of it, unless there is a compelling
reason not to.

Right now, I don't see any reason why the enterprise profile should
not also use 16.1.

Thanks,
Richard