Re: [TICTOC] Enterprise profile comments

Douglas Arnold <doug.arnold2@gmail.com> Thu, 01 August 2013 04:24 UTC

Return-Path: <doug.arnold2@gmail.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 5E99E21E8064 for <tictoc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 21:24:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 nM0JxGsrg4HC for <tictoc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 21:24:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-x22b.google.com (mail-ob0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F0D121E805F for <tictoc@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 21:24:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ob0-f171.google.com with SMTP id tb18so2941237obb.2 for <tictoc@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 21:24:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=SL86KIP56usIHU3XECvexqmukrB8B2FN6Uecrdi4dU0=; b=uezoJV89AJvxS6lHzHqHd3jkQZfoyCZjlc+BWe9Vonw9HeCwa+ma+lxto6NsOyZRBb +wxWW/TSHn0asIZnBxh0Wl6JjKzyW3IdHNUM4pakGo8gr1vPxNXZiSS6RY//IlGnFRyE DoUPgagE6JRCZyIcN/eE3jk1H1YBx7f6fUwHlGJMwHZMPGLRTg6ySpKh0FVmZQOyXoff DjZeg/zg/N0TsqUbv4sKikWoc2FvZ5a58wCXtZo7eBcmB9CuVo+4v1vuT6UvLVGpFPs+ D9baOmfSEC2SQPqFGQ7L16AIdbUyXUtY1ccJMZf1UObox88YeTx5CN+nw9owZh0K3wv5 jw7A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.126.74 with SMTP id mw10mr1054384igb.20.1375331052946; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 21:24:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.225.2 with HTTP; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 21:24:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <74470498B659FA4687F0B0018C19A89C01A0FA10A369@IL-MB01.marvell.com>
References: <CACQYgzEfFq0S1+aASOZ3VcODVMoaDDPhcDkM4Hi=o7ihLFhv1A@mail.gmail.com> <74470498B659FA4687F0B0018C19A89C01A0FA10A369@IL-MB01.marvell.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 21:24:12 -0700
Message-ID: <CACQYgzH3ROmKkUcRqZCo527ewHoPMBOJXDXLLnMR1-Hp=Q-YAg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Douglas Arnold <doug.arnold2@gmail.com>
To: Tal Mizrahi <talmi@marvell.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b414176dc0ee804e2db3614"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 00:51:40 -0700
Cc: "tictoc@ietf.org" <tictoc@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TICTOC] Enterprise profile comments
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: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 04:24:14 -0000

Hello Tal,

This is an important point. I believe that the Enterprise IT world will
want to use multipath PTP when implementations become available.
 Unfortunately I believe that it will be a few years before COTS PTP
equipment has this feature.  The exact form of MPPTP is yet to be defined
in the 1588 revision which just started and I expect that most of the
vendors will wait until at least the 1588 committee is in agreement about
how MPPTP will operate in particular mappings.  At that time I would expect
to revise the Enterprise Profile.  The short version of this answer is that
I don't want to include MPPTP until I am sure how the 1588 committee is
going to treat it.

In IEEE 1588-2008 Unicast negotiation is used only for master clock message
capacity management.   This is, so far, not wanted by the network
architects in the finance industry, whose needs we are trying to meet.

Here I am only speaking my personal opinion.  I have not discussed this
with Heiko yet.

Doug


On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 6:13 AM, Tal Mizrahi <talmi@marvell.com> wrote:

> Hi Heiko, Doug,****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks for putting this draft together. I believe it can be very useful to
> the industry.****
>
> ** **
>
> After going over the updated draft I have a single comment:****
>
> Please consider allowing unicast negotiation. The reason I am raising this
> is that multi-path PTP (draft-shpiner-multi-path-synchronization) would
> require Sync messages to be sent as unicast, and hence require unicast
> negotiation. I believe MPPTP can be useful in the context of this profile,
> allowing both redundancy and higher accuracy in some scenarios. Will
> appreciate if you can give this some thought.****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks,****
>
> Tal.****
>
> ** **
>