Tal, It is lower case "must" which is not a normative requirement. It is informative.
Thx Shahram -----Original Message----- From: Tal Mizrahi [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 9:13 AM To: Bhatia, Manav (Manav); Shahram Davari; [email protected] Subject: RE: Transporting PTP messages (1588) over MPLS Networks Hi Manav, Shahram, > > 10. QoS Considerations > - I am not sure I understand why this is a MUST. This draft > defines an encapsulation, while the QoS requirements are > typically be derived from the application, which is defined elsewhere. > > SD> The application is PTP, which requires low delay. Are you > suggesting we make it a should? > >The current text does not use a MUST. Does that look ok? The current wording is "The PTP messages are time critical and must be treated with the highest priority.", while the IEEE 1588 states in the informative Annex A that "PTP event messages should be sent with high priority compared with other data whenever possible." Of course it makes sense that PTP is high priority, but the current wording seems a bit too stringent. Thanks. Tal. -----Original Message----- From: Bhatia, Manav (Manav) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 6:54 PM To: Shahram Davari; Tal Mizrahi; [email protected] Subject: RE: Transporting PTP messages (1588) over MPLS Networks Hi Tal, In addition to what Shahram has said: > 6. 1588 Message Transport > "If Two Step Transparent clocks are present, then the > FOLLOW_UP and DELAY_RESP messages must also be transported > over the PTP LSPs." > - for P2P TCs you also need the PDelay_Resp_Follow_Up. > > SD> AFAIK These messages don't require time stamping and > therefore don't have to be transported over PTP LSP. The PDelay_Resp_Follow_Up message will never go through a TC and will never have its CF modified. In the case of a non-TC PTP LSR, it is only the PDelay_Req and PDelay-Resp message that are time sensitive. So the PDelay_Resp_Follow_Up can be sent outside of the PTP LSP. > > 10. QoS Considerations > - I am not sure I understand why this is a MUST. This draft > defines an encapsulation, while the QoS requirements are > typically be derived from the application, which is defined elsewhere. > > SD> The application is PTP, which requires low delay. Are you > suggesting we make it a should? The current text does not use a MUST. Does that look ok? Cheers, Manav _______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
