On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 06:15:46PM -0400, Sharon Goldberg wrote: > > > > The main reasoning here was, I believe, that an inherent solution would be > > easier to tailor to a time synchronization protocol's special needs, > > particularly for the additional delays caused by the cryptographic > > operations on time-sensitive packets to be small (and ideally > > symmetrical). > > > > OK, that's interesting. > Can you please elaborate on the symmetrical requirement?
I assume that he's talking about the time between getting T1 and sending out the packet, and getting T3 and sending it out would need about the same delay. I also assume that to be able to get a very accurate results. But if that's the case I think they're going about this the wrong way. I think for most cases the overhead of the crypto is not going to have an impact on the results because there is just way more jitter on the network. For the cases this matters both sides should take an additional timestamp when the packet was really sent, and have a follow up packet that contains the correct time. For the cases where this matters, they should already be doing this. Kurt _______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
