Hello Greg,
Much thanks for your valuable input - we appreciate it a lot.
Please see my answers inline.
Have a great day,
Michał Michalik
> As I highlighted earlier, I, along with other users of ptp4l, don't feel the
> linuxptp project is the right place for the submission of the ITU-T ESMC
> Protocol (which is based on recommendations G.8274 & G.781). There are no
> dependencies on ESMC with the 1588 protocol or the Linux PHC, nor is the
> linuxptp maintainer wanting to be a bottleneck for contributions to the ESMC
> protocol (as highlighted below from Richard).
If you don't mind, please let me ask you a question - I am definitely missing
something. Whom are you talking about while using expression "along with other
users of ptp4l"? To my best understanding right now we have a situation, where:
- you are against including it into linuxptp,
- Miroslav Lichvar is for including it,
- Erez is for including it,
- if I understand Richard communicate well, he did not say firm "no" - just
raised
some concerns about his bandwidth,
- we (as Intel) are good with both ways - we just need to know.
In which point my understanding is faulty?
Richard - since you obviously have the last word, would you mind to state your
final decision clearly to avoid any further interpretations of your answer?
>
> >My main concern is the fact that my time is limited to work on >linuxptp,
> >and I already have a back log of patches. If synce will have >rapid
> >development, new features, etc, then I don't want to be the >bottleneck.
>
> To address this concern, Renesas has submitted our open implementation of the
> ESMC protocol to github, also under the same name:
> https://github.com/renesas/synce4l. This is an open project under GPLv2, and
> we welcome contributions to it. The implementation not only addresses the
> ESMC protocol per G.8264, but also includes some additional features from
> G.781. We realize there will be a need to provide QL and other information
> from synce4l to ptp4l, per applicable ITU-T 1588 Profiles, and look forward
> to collaborating with the linuxptp community to produce these interfaces.
Since working in community should be based on honesty, let me be honest here.
I feel we have a little awkward situation we need to solve somehow together.
Some facts about the issue I'm thinking about: We have pushed first patches of
synce4l to linuxptp newsletter on 26th May. Then we see that Renesas have pushed
one initial commit with only empty README mentioning the synce4l name (8th Jul)
and second commit with full code implementation (15th Jul) - both commits were
uploaded few weeks after our initial submission using synce4l name. I am
perfectly aware that neither of us has any trademark rights to the name, so
technically Renesas did nothing wrong. Still, we feel a little bad about the
situation where we wanted to be fair and waited for final linuxptp community
decision before pushing the synce4l somewhere else and in the meantime see
other project started with the same exact name. Let me be perfectly clear here
- I assume no bad intentions, we just have had a unfortunate coincidence here.
I assume you also have been working on this application for months and this
rush in publishing it means absolutely nothing. Let me now explain why this
name matters for us. We've been using this name internally for some time now
- it would be quite tiresome to change it in lots of documentation and
communication. Additionally, caring for best quality of our submission to
linuxptp - we have dropped our customers an early sample of synce4l last year
so they could provide us with a valuable feedback on what we could improve.
Our customers are familiar with the name synce4l and seeing other project named
the same might confuse them. Kind question - would you please at least consider
changing a project name at this very early stage?
Before you answer that - please let me state our position. We are all part of
community and sometimes we need to find a solution somehow acceptable to all. We
are definitely open to changing our application name (within or outside linuxptp
project), even knowing that it would bring quite a big amount of additional
work.
Btw. We also considering contributing your project, if that gets more traction
and would at some time look more promising. What I am concerned about right now
looking at it, it seems really hardware specific. We aimed to avoid that at all
cost - our application is not connected to Intel HW at all - it can be used
with NIC of
any vendor. Are Renesas eventually is going to do the same?
>
> We will also be working with the Network Time Foundation to see if they would
> be willing to oversee synce4l project like the other Linux projects they
> already manage, including linuxptp. We have also already shared synce4l
> project with other MAC/PHY/SoC vendors looking for an ESMC protocol solution.
I understand - maybe a good idea is that both Intel and Renesas should change
the name, so we would not confuse anybody about 'which synce4l is which'?
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> Greg Armstrong
> Principal System Architect, Timing Products Division
> Renesas Electronics Canada Limited
> Mobile: 1-613-218-9373
>
_______________________________________________
Linuxptp-devel mailing list
Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
