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

[Nalini Elkins <[e-mail]>]

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.
[phone]
www.insidethestack.com



________________________________
 From: joel jaeggli <[e-mail]>
To: Nalini Elkins <[e-mail]>; IPv6 Ops WG <[e-mail]> 
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