Re: [v6ops] draft-elkins-v6ops-ipv6-pdm-recommended-usage-00

ntpwg@lists.ntp.org will get you the NTP WG.

Regards,
Brian

On 8/1/13 10:11 AM, Nalini Elkins wrote:
> Thanks for your comments, Joel.
>
> I want to take some time to research this further and talk to some more people.    I will respond back on the list to this point in about 2 weeks.   I want to talk this over with some of the folks actively working on NTP at IETF.
>
> Nalini Elkins
> Inside Products, Inc.
> (831) 659-8360
> www.insidethestack.com
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>   From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
> To: Nalini Elkins <nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com>; IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
> Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2013 6:45 AM
> Subject: draft-elkins-v6ops-ipv6-pdm-recommended-usage-00
>
>
> Since I ran into you in the hall and the dicussion turned to ntp...
>
> I'll try and be succinct, and as a non-expert in the time field this
> should be taken with a grain of salt.
>
> The generic utility of a high-resultion time-stamp is imho dodgey
> outside of situations where the clocks are deliberately syncronized and
> traceable to a common standard whether the protocol used for this is ntp
> or ieee 1588 (or since this is the ietf PTPV2) . While this is tractable
> for devices in a single span of control, the agruement that ntp might be
> suffcient to make this timstamp useful generically between two
> aribitratry devices where this functionality may need to be enabled is
> imho a hard one to assert.
>
> It is a set of operational practice and discipline moreso than the
> choice of technology that allows for a high-resolution timestamp to have
> sufficient precision to be useful between hosts.
>
> joel
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>