Re: [TICTOC] Enterprise profile update

[Richard Cochran <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 03:31:58PM +0200, Wojciech Owczarek wrote:

> Nevertheless, I do support the call for allowing the mixed
> unicast/multicast operation, but not exclusively - also allowing to
> use pure multicast operation. From the implementation perspective
> this is simple: if the PTP_UNICAST flag of the incoming delayReq was
> true, you reply to the source. If not, you reply to the common
> multicast group. We have been doing that in ptpd for quite a while
> now.

But why not simply do what it says to do in 1588-2008 Section 16.1 ?

[ This question is directed at both ptpd and the new profile. ]

If the profile and the implementations follow the standard, then it
makes it far easier for different products to inter-operate.

I am willing to bet that some stacks already implement 16.1, and
following the standard in the enterprise profile will make it simple
for such stacks to support the new profile. In contrast, mandating new
behavior makes more work for everyone.

Sometimes you cannot avoid having special behavior in a profile, but
in this case I don't think the departure from 1588 brings any tangible
benefit.

Thanks,
Richard