On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 05:05:50PM +1000, David Mirabito wrote: > Thanks for confirming my understanding on why this Announce was fishy. We > suspected as much but couldn't rule out accidentally overlooking something. > Given UTC is explicitly desired/configured in this case it seems our > options are either (ideally) get the master to cease claiming PTP > timescale, then specifying UTC timestamps with an UtcOffset of zero can be > correct (by administrative decree), or just deal with the messages.
And for the record, when ptp4l sees timescale ARB, then it assumes that the timescale is UTC. That behavior is not standardized, but I think it makes sense. Thanks, Richard ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Linuxptp-users mailing list Linuxptp-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-users
