Hi Yaakov, Thanks for the minutes.
I have a few questions. > Shahram said that NTP and IS-IS were not covered due to lack of expertise. > > Manav said that IS-IS could certainly be added. > > Shahram said that LDP of the PWE3 control protocol needed to be added due to > the possibility of PHP'ing the tunnel label. I did not understand this point. > Ron asked whether the draft could be extended to handle LSRs that did not > support TC correction on ALL ports, > > but only on those needed for the timing flow. This would require additional > port capabilities description. I would like to understand the utility of such a description. Either the box is capable of doing TC correction, or it cant. I dont believe this capability is required per port. Would appreciate if someone can explain us why? > > Manav said that this could be done in OSPF-TE. > > Ron stressed the importance of this feature. Would love to know why. > Stefano asked why this draft was limited to PTP and not (for example) NTP. > > Ron said that the entire idea was to support the TC correction field, > > and that prioritization could be accomplished without a new draft. > > Yaakov said that prioritization (e.g., EF) could indeed be covered in a BCP > rather than a PS RFC, Is this by using the EXP bits? > > but if BC was required for PTP or NTP, then the techniques defined here were > still needed. You would also require this draft if you did TC. > > Ron stated that the encapsulation was general enough to support a pure MPLS > mode (without UDP/IP or Ethernet). > > Shahram said that he preferred to avoid this, as it would require further > IEEE and IETF work. Isnt the draft already supporting all encapsulations? In Fig 2 UDP, IP are all optional. I assumed that it meant that we support all encapsulations. Also the fact that RSVP was signalling the start of the PTP packet (which is neat!) indicated that we support everything. I seem to be missing something here. > > Ron said that the IEEE already granted authority to the IETF to devise such > an encapsulation. > > Yaakov said that only a simple PWE3 draft would be needed to define a new PW > type. > > It was decided that this needed to be discussed further. > > Ron and Yaakov raised the point of UDP checksum correction This is only for TC right? > > (FCS correction for retention mode is mentioned in the draft, but not UDP > checksum). > > Shahram asked if checksum is mandatory. > > Yaakov replied that it is optional in IPv4, but mandatory in IPv6. > > Shahram asked whether the checksum could be corrected rather than > recalculated. > > Yaakov said yes. > > Shahram said that since the UDP mode over IPv6 is supported by the available > chipsets, > > apparently they already do the correction. > > > Karen said that we want to advance this draft to WG draft before the next > meeting. > > We don't need to finalize all the open items first. I agree. Kam _______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
