Yaakov,
You've said:
I believe we should be more modest in our MUSTs here.
I would prefer that a "1588-aware" LSR MUST to be able to identify [PTP
traffic - Sasha]
for prioritization, and MAY be able to correct the correction field.
I concur with you regarding the level of requirements.
Editorially, I think that "to correct the correction field" is an pleonasm that
SHOULD be corrected.
Regards,
Sasha
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Yaakov Stein
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 5:45 PM
To: Bhatia, Manav (Manav); [email protected]
Subject: Re: [TICTOC] Transporting PTP messages (1588) over MPLS Networks
Manav and co-authors,
I just started reading the document, and have a few comments.
First, as we have stated a few times already, TICTOC is looking for a unified
solution
for carrying timing flows over MPLS, not just 1588. Although this doesn't
necessarily
mean that a single document explains both, if we have two separate documents,
or worse, only a 1588 document, we will not accomplish what we are intending.
Second, the following wording is not going to fly in the IETF.
This document requires that MLPS nodes (LSRs) SHOULD be able to support TC,
...
Such an LSR is referred to as a "1588-aware LSR" in this document.
As written this means that if this document becomes a proposed standard RFC,
then every LSR manufactured will have to support identification of timing flows
(remember SHOULD means MUST unless there is a very good reason no to).
This, of course, means that almost every LSR will need to be "1588-aware"
and there is no need to define the term.
I believe that what you mean to says is something like this.
This document defines a "1588-aware LSR" that is able to identify 1588
timing flows
carried over MPLS.
Third, and more controversially, I believe we should be more modest in our
MUSTs here.
I would prefer that a "1588-aware" LSR MUST to be able to identify for
prioritization,
and MAY be able to correct the correction field.
I have a few more minor comments (e.g., you speak of correcting FCS for the PW
FCS retention mode
of Ethernet PWS, but don't discuss correcting the UDP checksum (which in IPv6
is mandatory),
but prefer to clear up the major items first.
Y(J)S
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Bhatia, Manav (Manav)
Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2011 12:56
To: [email protected]
Subject: [TICTOC] Transporting PTP messages (1588) over MPLS Networks
Hi,
We have posted a revised version of draft-davari-tictoc-1588overmpls-01 and
would appreciate a feedback from the WG.
The draft is available here:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-davari-tictoc-1588overmpls-01.txt
Cheers, Manav
--
Manav Bhatia,
IP Division, Alcatel-Lucent,
Bangalore - India
_______________________________________________
TICTOC mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
_______________________________________________
TICTOC mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
_______________________________________________
TICTOC mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
