Re: [TICTOC] Enterprise Profile

[Kevin Gross <[e-mail]>]

So the use case would be timecode distribution in a broadcast facility
where multicast routing is administratively confined to the facility. Sound
reasonable.

I think that the reason alternate timescales are not included in the
enterprise profile is that the enterprise profile is trying to do things
the NTP way. NTP does not know about timezones; that is left up to the
individual workstations to sort out.

I expect your argument for allowing it that systems that wish to continue
to operate in this way can simply ignore the alternate timescale and even
if there is a disagreement about what the local time is, they're no worse
off than they currently are.

Kevin Gross
[phone]
Media Network Consultant
AVA Networks - www.AVAnw.com <http://www.avanw.com/>


On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 9:28 AM, John Fletcher <[e-mail]>wrote:

>  Hi Kevin,****
>
> ** **
>
> Well, I think it already accepted that there are applications where it is
> useful to know the local time.  Generating SMPTE Timecode is one that you
> know about.****
>
> ** **
>
> From Doug’s comment, I’m not clear if he wanted to prohibit something
> different, i.e. using an ARB timescale to represent local time.  I’m happy
> to prohibit that but I would like to see the Alternate Timescales TLV of
> section 16.3 allowed – not required, just allowed.****
>
> ** **
>
> How can the endstation know which is the correct local time?  Most likely
> use case is that the PTP deployment is designed so that masters do not
> serve more than one timezone.  Failing that, it could be user selection
> based on the name of the alternate timescale.****
>
> ** **
>
> Yes, you can route multicast messages beyond a subnet but many network
> administrators, e.g. in my own company’s enterprise network, choose not to
> allow that, especially for “Any Source Multicast” as used by 1588.****
>
> ** **
>
> John****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Kevin Gross [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* 29 October 2013 15:45
> *To:* John Fletcher
> *Cc:* Douglas Arnold; [e-mail]
>
> *Subject:* Re: [TICTOC] Enterprise Profile****
>
> ** **
>
> Multicast IP routing allows multicast messaging beyond a subnet. Multicast
> IP routing is not available over the internet but it is now fairly common
> on enterprise networks.****
>
> ** **
>
> John, can you describe a use case for alternate timescales and explain how
> the endstation can know that the timescale is correct local time or which
> alternate timescale to use if there are multiple?****
>
>
> ****
>
> Kevin Gross****
>
> [phone]****
>
> Media Network Consultant****
>
> AVA Networks - www.AVAnw.com <http://www.avanw.com/>****
>
> ** **
>
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 4:18 AM, John Fletcher <[e-mail]>
> wrote:****
>
> Just to be clear, I am not suggesting use of a different epoch in
> timestamp fields.  I am talking about the optional TLV described in section
> 16.3 which can give you the offset(s) between PTP time and one or more
> timescales of your choice.****
>
>  ****
>
> Regarding spanning timezones, there is a difference between the extent of
> the enterprise network and the extent of the part of network served by a
> PTP master.  The latter is probably a subnet since multicast messages (e.g.
> Announce) are usually confined to a subnet.  A subnet spanning multiple
> timezones would be less common.  However you can have more than one
> Alternate Timescale if necessary.****
>
>  ****
>
> This feature is just an option; I’m not suggesting it be required, just
> that it not be forbidden.****
>
>  ****
>
> John****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* Douglas Arnold [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* 28 October 2013 20:06
> *To:* John Fletcher****
>
>
> *Cc:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [TICTOC] Enterprise Profile****
>
>  ****
>
> Hello John,****
>
>  ****
>
> I agree that local time is useful.  I would not be averse to creating a
> TLV to distribute local time offset, so that end node can convert to local
> time and present it to users.****
>
>  ****
>
> However, I do not support the idea of using a local time epoch in the PTP
> timestamp fields. This is an allowed option in IEEE 1588-2008, but I
> believe that this is likely to cause interoperability problems, when some
> vendors support it and others do not.  Also some system architechs have
> indicated that they deploy PTP across large networks, which span time
> zones. This is the feature that should be forbidden.  ****
>
>  ****
>
> In the NTP standard (RFC5905) the timestamps in the packet all use a
> specific time epoch, and generate all other desired time epoch as
> corrections performed at the end points.  Note also that in most computer
> operating systems a single standard time epoch is used in and local time is
> generated at the presentation layer for human readable interfaces.****
>
>  ****
>
> Doug****
>
>  ****
>
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 8:10 AM, John Fletcher <[e-mail]>
> wrote:****
>
> I'd also like to ask that you don't prohibit the Alternate Timescales
> option.  This is potentially useful to distribute "local time" (your
> time-zone and dst) and there doesn't seem to be any need to prohibit it. *
> ***
>
>  ****
>
> John****
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* [e-mail] [[e-mail]] on behalf of
> John Fletcher [[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* 25 October 2013 11:01
> *To:* Douglas Arnold
> *Cc:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [TICTOC] Enterprise Profile****
>
> Doug,****
>
>  ****
>
> I would be interested to know the circumstances when you see the maximum
> phase adjustment information being used.****
>
>  ****
>
> Some comments:****
>
>  ****
>
> In section 6, you say, “In all three of the delay measurement modes…”.  At
> that point in the text you have not yet mentioned multicast, hybrid and
> unicast modes so it’s not clear which modes you are referring to.****
>
>  ****
>
> In section 9, you say, “Slaves SHOULD NOT Synchronize to a Rogue Master.”
> It’s not clear how a slave would know that a master is rogue; presumably it
> would need to examine the announce messages of all masters and do its own
> BMCA evaluation.  A more realistic “rogue” master would probably meet the
> BMCA criteria for selection.****
>
>  ****
>
> In section 12, “Alternative Time Scales” should be “Alternate Timescales”.
> ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> Regards,****
>
> John Fletcher****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] *On
> Behalf Of *Douglas Arnold
> *Sent:* 25 October 2013 01:35
> *To:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* [TICTOC] Enterprise Profile****
>
>  ****
>
> Hello Everyone,****
>
>  ****
>
> Attached is an updated version of the Enterprise profile.  Sorry I missed
> the upload deadline for  the Vancouver meeting.  If you get a chance to
> look at it before then I will be there and would love to discuss it. ****
>
>  ****
>
> Summary of changes:****
>
>  ****
>
> I also changed the TLV format to fit the latest proposal in the 1588
> revision.  ****
>
>  ****
>
> I added a statement about not going into the master state unless one had a
> current UTC offset.  ****
>
>  ****
>
> I added to the TLV fields to indicate maximum phase correction over a sync
> cycle.****
>
>  ****
>
> -- ****
>
> Doug Arnold****
>
> Principal Technologist****
>
> *JTime!* Meinberg USA****
>
> [phone]****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> ----------------------------
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk
> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal
> views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
> If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
> Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in
> reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
> Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
> Further communication will signify your consent to this.****
>
> ---------------------****
>
>  ****
>
> ----------------------------
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk
> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal
> views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
> If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
> Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in
> reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
> Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
> Further communication will signify your consent to this.****
>
> ---------------------****
>
>
>
> ****
>
>  ****
>
> -- ****
>
> Doug****
>
> ** **
>