Hello Roman,
Thanks for reviewing the draft and relaying the comments by Susan Hares. I
respond to the comments inline as follows:
** Section 15.
PTP Profile:
Enterprise Profile
Version: 1.0
Profile identifier: 00-00-5E-00-01-00
This PTP Profile was specified by the IETF
A copy may be obtained at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/tictoc/documents
Per Figure 55 of Section 20.3.3 of [IEEE1588], it appears that a few things are
missing:
-- missing a profile number (which is distinct from the profile version, but
implicit in the profile identifier)
Good catch. I propose adding the line:
Profile number: 1
-- Using “https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/tictoc/documents “ for
“sourceIdentification: This attribute shall be a URL, e-mail, or regular mail
address to which inquiries concerning the profile or requests for copies may be
sent.” Instead of the specific name.
Since the plan is to shut down TICTOC after this project is finished, I’m not
sure if there is an email address or web link to which inquires, or requests
could be sent that would actually get answered. I think I need advice from the
IETF experts here.
>From Susan Hares:
== The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if
it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph with
a matching beginning. Boilerplate error?
Yes, I propose the following:
* I remove “NOT RECOMMENDED” from my requirements language list in section
2
* Later I use the phrase “NOT ALLOWED” in capitals suggesting that it is a
special IETF normative phrase, but that phrase is not listed in RFC 2119. So I
will change those instances to lower case.
** Section 1. Editorial. s/in stead/instead/
Thanks. I will change all instances of “in stead” to “instead”.
** Section 1.
In PTP domains with a lot
of nodes, devices had to throw away more than 99% of the received
multicast messages because they carried information for some other
node.
Good point. One shouldn’t mix a vague term like “a lot of nodes” with a
specific number like “99%”. Since this is the intro, I will keep it vague for
now. I propose:
In section 1, change:
“In PTP domains with a lot of nodes, devices had to throw away more than 99% of
the received multicast messages because they carried information for some other
node.”
To:
“In PTP domains with many nodes, devices had to throw away most of the received
multicast messages because they carried information for some other node.”
** Section 5.
The PTP system MAY include switches and routers.
What does this mean? Aren’t switches and routers just computers?
True, in a general sense switches and routers are computers, but network
architects generally distinguish them from other computers in the network. This
is especially true if they are concerned with time transfer, since switch and
router queues are usually the dominant source of time error in NTP or PTP.
** Section 6.
The PTP primary IP address is
224.0.1.129 for IPv4 and FF0X:0:0:0:0:0:0:181 for IPv6, where X can
be a value between 0x0 and 0xF, see IEEE 1588 [IEEE1588] Annex D,
Section D.3.
The IPv4 address is in Annex C of [IEEE1558]. Annex D is IPv6 only.
The intent of the reference to Annex D was to explain the different options for
IPv6, but I understand the source of confusion. I propose:
In section 6, change:
“The PTP primary IP address is 224.0.1.129 for IPv4 and FF0X:0:0:0:0:0:0:181
for IPv6, where X can be a value between 0x0 and 0xF, see IEEE 1588 [IEEE1588]
Annex D, Section D.3.”
To:
“The PTP primary IP address is 224.0.1.129 for IPv4 and FF0X:0:0:0:0:0:0:181
for IPv6, where X can be a value between 0x0 and 0xF. The different IPv6
address options are explained in IEEE 1588 [IEEE1588] Annex D, Section D.3.”
________________________________
From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2024 3:21 PM
To: The IESG <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
<[email protected]>; [email protected]
<[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected]
<[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Roman Danyliw's Discuss on
draft-ietf-tictoc-ptp-enterprise-profile-26: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tictoc-ptp-enterprise-profile-26: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tictoc-ptp-enterprise-profile/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
** Section 15.
PTP Profile:
Enterprise Profile
Version: 1.0
Profile identifier: 00-00-5E-00-01-00
This PTP Profile was specified by the IETF
A copy may be obtained at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/tictoc/documents
Per Figure 55 of Section 20.3.3 of [IEEE1588], it appears that a few things are
missing:
-- missing a profile number (which is distinct from the profile version, but
implicit in the profile identifier)
-- Using “https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/tictoc/documents “ for
“sourceIdentification: This attribute shall be a URL, e-mail, or regular mail
address to which inquiries concerning the profile or requests for copies may be
sent.” Instead of the specific name.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you to Susan Hares for the GENART review.
** idnits reported the following:
== The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if
it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph with
a matching beginning. Boilerplate error?
** Section 1. Editorial. s/in stead/instead/
** Section 1.
In PTP domains with a lot
of nodes, devices had to throw away more than 99% of the received
multicast messages because they carried information for some other
node.
What constitutes “a lot of nodes”?
** Section 5.
The PTP system MAY include switches and routers.
What does this mean? Aren’t switches and routers just computers?
** Section 6.
The PTP primary IP address is
224.0.1.129 for IPv4 and FF0X:0:0:0:0:0:0:181 for IPv6, where X can
be a value between 0x0 and 0xF, see IEEE 1588 [IEEE1588] Annex D,
Section D.3.
The IPv4 address is in Annex C of [IEEE1558]. Annex D is IPv6 only.
_______________________________________________
TICTOC mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
