[TICTOC] PTP Enterprise profile TLV clarification

Wojciech Owczarek <wojciech@owczarek.co.uk> Fri, 02 October 2015 14:24 UTC

Return-Path: <wojciech@owczarek.co.uk>
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 EEC271A033B for <tictoc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 07:24:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 EirnLjuzcpgO for <tictoc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 07:24:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-f42.google.com (mail-qg0-f42.google.com [209.85.192.42]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA2011A0161 for <tictoc@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 07:24:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qgev79 with SMTP id v79so95510759qge.0 for <tictoc@ietf.org>; Fri, 02 Oct 2015 07:24:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=M6F+d8HnEIu5k8uEsaVkcOzOncN5ZVz9UxGCCrwx65s=; b=glCNUZFb45NPW2lD7k1grS4VIFHufGW3PGOzNvRZAFE5qNfRu1LTjJ/siDwOs6ewg6 nPXtdfep77oMlC7TJR5rdpeeWXKRslvKfLo/o0RZ2VB23u4QbPWEddbgm1igcudkADhe ue0zLnxcxJ7yi5ErW0z4BtNzWJnyp1bdi05BHiOgHtgNNExDdA6siD6qBmSHaDA/g3dg h5oOU5Su1kf8MiSUQSycTQ3hZMOSz3LfDIfGuCe5lkCms7RUfxYAV3b0MhT4u4qvSDN9 2lajrgxfedinI8+CX0xiC7cGSSqEYBShzXRvWPr816LWXH81pnziCIYQVtKSyPx9DgV8 dKLA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn+LI9kw8Dr4OQaljYKfTzuBmp0LxmrLyuFr1ic5+aWBoATx/4CSXt28zHJCAIczlDW/F94
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.95.77 with SMTP id h71mr20134381qge.8.1443795888827; Fri, 02 Oct 2015 07:24:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.55.215.193 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 07:24:48 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2015 15:24:48 +0100
Message-ID: <CAHyFsxkjKxDHLo=CiTVG1ACaM=S+d0E=12fW_M+2ED-ywZ0D5g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wojciech Owczarek <wojciech@owczarek.co.uk>
To: "tictoc@ietf.org" <tictoc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c163d6150a2805211fedaa"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tictoc/uOGkzcJXOthnrRRsAcu-kmU8QFg>
Subject: [TICTOC] PTP Enterprise profile TLV clarification
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 02 Oct 2015 14:24:52 -0000

All,

I'm looking for some clarification around the Enterprise Profile identifier
TLV defined in the draft. In particular - how it maps onto the
ORGANIZATION_EXTENSION TLV as per IEEE 1588. The TLV as a whole new TLV is
fine, however it uses an existing TLV, so it should conform.

1588:

tlvType 2 octets, lengthField 2 octets, oui 3 octets, orgSubType 3 octets,
dataField N octets.

Enterprise Profile - all matches up to OUI. Then we have:

Profile number: 1 octet, Revision Number: 1 octet, Port Number: 2 octets,
MaxPhaseAdj: 2 octets

My question is: how do the 2 octets of profile number and revision number
align with the 3-octet SubType field? If they do not, then this TLV does
not meet the 14.3.2 spec. If they do, then the draft should clearly specify
how the profile/revision map onto the SubType field.

The org-specific structure begins with the dataField, not orgSubType -
unless the intention is to use the "shall" escape in 14.3.2.5.

My suggestion would be that either:

- some fixed "TICTOC" ID is placed into the SubType, and all other fields
are in the DataField, and that is clearly defined in the profile RFC,

- a mapping of profile/revision to orgSubType is provided by the RFC, and a
statement that portNumber and maxPhaseAdj are mapped onto the DataField.

Any comments welcome, and apologies if this has already been discussed.

Regards,
Wojciech

-- 
-

Wojciech Owczarek