draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps-01.txt   draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps-02.txt 
Network Working Group T. Mizrahi NTP Working Group T. Mizrahi
Internet-Draft Marvell Internet-Draft Marvell
Intended status: Informational J. Fabini Intended status: Informational J. Fabini
Expires: September 6, 2018 Vienna University of Technology Expires: December 26, 2018 TU Wien
A. Morton A. Morton
AT&T Labs AT&T Labs
March 5, 2018 June 24, 2018
Guidelines for Defining Packet Timestamps Guidelines for Defining Packet Timestamps
draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps-01 draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps-02
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies guidelines for defining binary packet This document specifies guidelines for defining binary packet
timestamp formats in networking protocols at various layers. It also timestamp formats in networking protocols at various layers. It also
presents three recommended timestamp formats. The target audience of presents three recommended timestamp formats. The target audience of
this memo includes network protocol designers. It is expected that a this memo includes network protocol designers. It is expected that a
new network protocol that requires a packet timestamp will, in most new network protocol that requires a packet timestamp will, in most
cases, use one of the recommended timestamp formats. If none of the cases, use one of the recommended timestamp formats. If none of the
recommended formats fits the protocol requirements, the new protocol recommended formats fits the protocol requirements, the new protocol
skipping to change at page 1, line 41 skipping to change at page 1, line 41
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 6, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 26, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. Terms used in this Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.3. Terms used in this Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Packet Timestamp Specification Template . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Packet Timestamp Specification Template . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Recommended Timestamp Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Recommended Timestamp Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Using a Recommended Timestamp Format . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1. Using a Recommended Timestamp Format . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. NTP Timestamp Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.2. NTP Timestamp Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2.1. NTP 64-bit Timestamp Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.2.1. NTP 64-bit Timestamp Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2.2. NTP 32-bit Timestamp Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.2.2. NTP 32-bit Timestamp Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. The PTP Truncated Timestamp Format . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.3. The PTP Truncated Timestamp Format . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Synchronization Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. Synchronization Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Timestamp Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6. Timestamp Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. Example 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.1. Example 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2. Example 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.2. Example 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Packet Timestamp Control Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7. Packet Timestamp Control Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1. High-level Control Field Requirements . . . . . . . . . . 13 7.1. High-level Control Field Requirements . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.2. Control Field Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.3. Control Field Features and Elements . . . . . . . . . . . 15 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.3.1. Timestamp Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.3.2. Timestamp Format Specification . . . . . . . . . . . 16 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.3.3. Timestamp Precision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.3.4. Timestamp Timescale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.3.5. Timestamp Leap Second . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.3.6. Reference Clock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.3.7. Provable Signature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.3.8. Custom Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.4. Control Field Payload Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Timestamps are widely used in network protocols for various purposes, Timestamps are widely used in network protocols for various purposes,
including delay measurement, clock synchronization, and logging or including delay measurement, clock synchronization, and logging or
reporting the time of an event. reporting the time of an event.
Timestamps are represented in the RFC series in one of two forms: Timestamps are represented in the RFC series in one of two forms:
text-based timestamps, and packet timestamps. Text-based timestamps text-based timestamps, and packet timestamps. Text-based timestamps
[RFC3339] are represented as user-friendly strings, and are widely [RFC3339] are represented as user-friendly strings, and are widely
skipping to change at page 9, line 23 skipping to change at page 8, line 50
4.3. The PTP Truncated Timestamp Format 4.3. The PTP Truncated Timestamp Format
The Precision Time Protocol (PTP) [IEEE1588] uses an 80-bit timestamp The Precision Time Protocol (PTP) [IEEE1588] uses an 80-bit timestamp
format. The truncated timestamp format is a 64-bit field, which is format. The truncated timestamp format is a 64-bit field, which is
the 64 least significant bits of the 80-bit PTP timestamp. Since the 64 least significant bits of the 80-bit PTP timestamp. Since
this timestamp format is similar to the one used in PTP, this this timestamp format is similar to the one used in PTP, this
timestamp format should be preferred in network protocols that are timestamp format should be preferred in network protocols that are
typically deployed in PTP-capable devices. typically deployed in PTP-capable devices.
The PTP truncated timestamp format is used in several protocols, such The PTP truncated timestamp format was defined in [IEEE1588v1] and is
as [RFC6374], [RFC7456], [RFC8186] and [ITU-T-Y.1731]. used in several protocols, such as [RFC6374], [RFC7456], [RFC8186]
and [ITU-T-Y.1731].
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Seconds | | Seconds |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Nanoseconds | | Nanoseconds |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: PTP [IEEE1588] Truncated Timestamp Format Figure 3: PTP [IEEE1588] Truncated Timestamp Format
skipping to change at page 12, line 45 skipping to change at page 12, line 27
It is assumed that nodes that run this protocol are synchronized It is assumed that nodes that run this protocol are synchronized
among themselves. Nodes may be synchronized to a global reference among themselves. Nodes may be synchronized to a global reference
time. Note that if PTP [IEEE1588] is used for synchronization, time. Note that if PTP [IEEE1588] is used for synchronization,
the timestamp may be derived from the PTP-synchronized clock, the timestamp may be derived from the PTP-synchronized clock,
allowing the timestamp to be measured with respect to the clock of allowing the timestamp to be measured with respect to the clock of
an PTP Grandmaster clock. an PTP Grandmaster clock.
7. Packet Timestamp Control Field 7. Packet Timestamp Control Field
In some cases it is desirable to have a control field that includes In some cases it is desirable to have a control field that describes
information about the timestamp format. Control information about structure, format, content, and properties of timestamps. Control
the timestamp format can be conveyed in some protocols using a information about the timestamp format can be conveyed in some
dedicated control plane protocol, or may be made available at the protocols using a dedicated control plane protocol, or may be made
management plane, for example using a YANG data model. The optional available at the management plane, for example using a YANG data
control field that is defined in this section allows some of the model. An optional control field allows some of the control
control information to be attached to the timestamp. This section information to be attached to the timestamp.
defines requirements and a recommended format of a timestamp-related
control field that is intended for network protocols that can benefit An example of a packet timestamp control field is the Error Estimate
from such timestamp-related control information. field, defined by Section 4.1.2 in [RFC4656], which is used in OWAMP
[RFC4656] and TWAMP [RFC5357].
This section defines high-level guidelines for defining packet
timestamp control fields in network protocols that can benefit from
such timestamp-related control information. The word 'requirements'
is used in its informal context in this section.
7.1. High-level Control Field Requirements 7.1. High-level Control Field Requirements
A control field for packet timestamps must offer an adequate feature A control field for packet timestamps must offer an adequate feature
set and fulfill a series of requirements to be usable and accepted. set and fulfill a series of requirements to be usable and accepted.
The following list captures the main high-level requirements for The following list captures the main high-level requirements for
timestamp fields. timestamp fields.
1. Extensible Feature Set: protocols and applications depend on 1. Extensible Feature Set: protocols and applications depend on
various timestamp characteristics. A timestamp control field various timestamp characteristics. A timestamp control field
must support a variable number of elements (components) that must support a variable number of elements (components) that
either describe or quantify timestamp-specific characteristics or either describe or quantify timestamp-specific characteristics or
parameters. Examples of potential elements include timestamp parameters. Examples of potential elements include timestamp
accuracy, leap seconds, reference clock identifiers, etc. size, encoding, accuracy, leap seconds, reference clock
identifiers, etc.
2. Size: Essential for an efficient use of timestamp control fields 2. Size: Essential for an efficient use of timestamp control fields
is the trade-off between supported features and control field is the trade-off between supported features and control field
size. Protocols and applications may select the specific control size. Protocols and applications may select the specific control
field elements that are needed for their operation from the set field elements that are needed for their operation from the set
of available elements. of available elements.
3. Composition: Applications may depend on specific control field 3. Composition: Applications may depend on specific control field
elements being present in messages. The status of these elements elements being present in messages. The status of these elements
may be either mandatory, conditional mandatory, or optional, may be either mandatory, conditional mandatory, or optional,
depending on the specific application and context. This memo depending on the specific application and context. A control
must support applications in conveying or negotiating (a) the set field specification must support applications in conveying or
of control field elements along with (b) the status of any negotiating (a) the set of control field elements along with (b)
element (i.e., mandatory, conditional mandatory, or optional) by the status of any element (i.e., mandatory, conditional
defining appropriate data structures and identity codes. mandatory, or optional) by defining appropriate data structures
and identity codes.
4. Category: Control field elements can characterize either static 4. Category: Control field elements can characterize either static
timestamp information (like, e.g., timestamp size in bytes and timestamp information (like, e.g., timestamp size in bytes and
timestamp semantics: NTP 64 bit format) or runtime timestamp timestamp semantics: NTP 64 bit format) or runtime timestamp
information (like, e.g., estimated timestamp accuracy at the time information (like, e.g., estimated timestamp accuracy at the time
of sampling: 20 microseconds to UTC). For efficiency reason it of sampling: 20 microseconds to UTC). For efficiency reason it
is meaningful to support separation of these two concepts: while may be meaningful to support separation of these two concepts:
the former (static) information is typically valid throughout a while the former (static) information is typically valid
protocol session and may be conveyed only once, at session throughout a protocol session and may be conveyed only once, at
establishment time, the latter (runtime) information augments any session establishment time, the latter (runtime) information
timestamp instance and may cause substantial overhead for high- augments any timestamp instance and may cause substantial
traffic protocols. overhead for high-traffic protocols.
7.2. Control Field Categories
Depending on their characteristics, the elements or components of a
timestamp control field can be assigned to one of two categories:
Structure (static) or Instance (runtime). Aim of this categorization
is to support minimum overhead of timestamp control fields in
practice. Protocols may use structural elements once, at connection
setup time to define or negotiate the timestamp structure and instace
elements (repeatedly) to identify the quality of timestamp instances
at runtime.
1. <Structure>: static timestamp control field. The static control
field identifies information like timestamp structure, type,
size, or features, that characterize and are common to a set of
related timestamps. Typical use of such a control field is at
connection establishment time when protocols negotiate available
and preferred timestamp types and features to be used for the
lifetime of an association. For instance endpoints can specify
the type, structure and size of the timestamp representation
within protocol messages that will be exchanged as part of a
following protocol session. These can be either standard
timestamp formats like NTP 64 bit as specified by this memo or
specific vendor-defined timestamp formats.
2. <Instance>: runtime timestamp control field. Besides static
information, dynamic (runtime) timestamp information is commonly
available at the sender when sampling a specific timestamp
instance. Typical examples include the ID of a clock that
originated a specific timestamp, the estimated time
synchronization accuracy of the local reference clock when
sampling a specific timestamp, or the correction to apply due to
an ongoing leap smear for a leap second. Moreover, with today's
critical infrastructures depending increasingly on accurate time,
provable signatures may become an essential runtime parameter to
protect the integrity of timestamp and control field values. The
accurate and reliable operation of timestamp receivers can
benefit from this detailed runtime control field information that
augments any single timestamp.
Drawing analogies to programming languages, the static timestamp
control field maps best to concepts like "type", "structure", or
"template", whereas the runtime timestamp control field corresponds
to "variables", i.e., runtime-instantiations of types. Main
consequence is that static timestamp control fields may be exchanged
only once during an ongoing association, saving substantial link
capacity, whereas a runtime timestamp control field accompanies any
single message or timestamp instance. Still, some protocols may
prefer to augment any single timestamp instance with both, a static
and a runtime control field. Example use cases for the latter
variant include potential support for heterogeneity in terms of
timestamps - various clients can decide dynamically which timestamp
format they send as part of the protocol - or to include a maximum of
timestamp context for receivers in the case of sporadic messages.
7.3. Control Field Features and Elements
The timestamp control field is composed of elements that can be
selected from the following set:
o Timestamp format
o Timestamp format specification
o Precision
o Timescale
o Leap second
o Reference clock(s)
o Probable signature
o Custom extension
o ... (tbd)
The following subsections detail on the role of the elements, their
structure and related constraints. Any element is characterized by
the following parameters:
o ID: <IANA identifier for this element>
o Type: Either <structure>: element defines static timestamp
structure that can subsequently be used to describe several
instances of timestamps - typically used once during connection
setup, or <instance>: parameter characteristic to a specific
timestamp instance.
o Status: <mandatory>, <conditional mandatory>, or <optional>.
Note: interpretation of the status field depends on the value of
the type field. If type is <structure>, then status <mandatory>
means that this element must be part of any <structure>-type
timestamp control field. However, it may be part of <instance>-
type timestamp control field, too.
o Size: <the size of this element, including all elements>
o Value: the value or subfields of this element
o Comments: Additions and considerations for this element
7.3.1. Timestamp Format
The timestamp format field defines the size and semantics of the
timestamp that follows this timestamp control field by referencing
appropriate IANA IDs.
o ID: tbd
o Type: <structure>
o Status: <mandatory>
o Size: tbd
o Value: IANA identifier, referencing either a standard format
defined by this memo or an alternate timestamp format (e.g.
vendor-specific extension). In the latter case, a Timestamp
Format Specification field is conditional mandatory.
o Comments:
7.3.2. Timestamp Format Specification
The timestamp format specification field defines the structure and
size of custom timestamps and is needed whenever the use of standard
timestamp formats is inappropriate.
o ID: tbd
o Type: <structure>
o Status: <conditional mandatory>. This field must be included
whenever the "timestamp format" element references non-standard
timestamp formats and must not be included into the control field
otherwise.
o Size: tbd
o Value: Subfields: 1. Timestamp size; 2. User- or vendor-specific
id and 3. Sub-id that allow to uniquely identify this timestamp
type;
o Comments:
7.3.3. Timestamp Precision
The precision field value stores the precision of the clock that
originated the timestamp at the time when the timestamp was sampled
along with attributes that characterize the timestamp quality (like
absolute or relative synchronization, reference clock identifiers,
etc.)
o ID: tbd
o Type: <instance> (optionally: <structure> when the clock
originating the timestamps has maximum limits for precision)?
o Status: <optional>. The local system may or may not know the
precision (or accuracy) of its clock and sampled timestamps.
o Size: tbd
o Value: Subfields: 1. Estimated Precision (in terms of 10^(-x)),
2. Maximum Error, 3. Reference (Absolute: UTC, TAI ...,
Relative: to specific clock, needs reference to clock ID)
o Comments: NTF calls this "error".
7.3.4. Timestamp Timescale
The timescale field denotes Epoch and Era of the timestamp
o ID: tbd
o Type: <instance>
o Status: <optional>
o Size: tbd
o Value: Subfields: 1. epoch 2. era
o Comments:
7.3.5. Timestamp Leap Second
o ID: tbd
o Type: <instance>
o Status: <optional>
o Size: tbd
o Value: Subfields: 1. Leap second ongoing 2. Considered leap
second fraction (during leap smear)
o Comments:
7.3.6. Reference Clock
o ID: tbd
o Type: <instance> (perhaps <structure>, too)
o Status: <optional>
o Size: tbd
o Value: Subfields: 1. Reference clock type 2. Unique reference
clock ID
o Comments:
7.3.7. Provable Signature
o ID: tbd
o Type: <instance>
o Status: <optional>
o Size: tbd
o Value: Signature covering the entire timstamp control field and
the timestamp field, masking out the provable signature field with
0.
o Comments:
7.3.8. Custom Extension
o ID: tbd
o Type: <structure> or <instance>
o Status: <optional>
o Size: tbd
o Value: tbd
o Comments: For future extensions
7.4. Control Field Payload Definition
This section defines the binding format of timestamp control Proposals for timestamp control fields will be defined in separate
(sub)fields to be used by protocols. (tbd) documents and are out of scope of this memo.
8. IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA. This memo includes no request to IANA.
9. Security Considerations 9. Security Considerations
A network protocol that uses a packet timestamp MUST specify the A network protocol that uses a packet timestamp MUST specify the
security considerations that result from using the timestamp. This security considerations that result from using the timestamp. This
section provides an overview of some of the common security section provides an overview of some of the common security
skipping to change at page 20, line 16 skipping to change at page 14, line 44
In many cases timestamping relies on an underlying synchronization In many cases timestamping relies on an underlying synchronization
mechanism. Thus, any attack that compromises the synchronization mechanism. Thus, any attack that compromises the synchronization
mechanism can also compromise protocols that use timestamping. mechanism can also compromise protocols that use timestamping.
Attacks on time protocols are discussed in detail in [RFC7384]. Attacks on time protocols are discussed in detail in [RFC7384].
10. Acknowledgments 10. Acknowledgments
The authors thank Yaakov Stein, Greg Mirsky, Warner Losh, Rodney The authors thank Yaakov Stein, Greg Mirsky, Warner Losh, Rodney
Cummings and other members of the NTP working group for many helpful Cummings and other members of the NTP working group for many helpful
comments. The authors gratefully acknowlege Harlan Stenn and the comments. The authors gratefully acknowledge Harlan Stenn and the
people from the Network Time Foundation for sharing their thoughts people from the Network Time Foundation for sharing their thoughts
and ideas. and ideas.
11. References 11. References
11.1. Normative References 11.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
skipping to change at page 20, line 39 skipping to change at page 15, line 24
11.2. Informative References 11.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-ippm-initial-registry] [I-D.ietf-ippm-initial-registry]
Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Eardley, P., and K. D'Souza, Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Eardley, P., and K. D'Souza,
"Initial Performance Metric Registry Entries", draft-ietf- "Initial Performance Metric Registry Entries", draft-ietf-
ippm-initial-registry-06 (work in progress), March 2018. ippm-initial-registry-06 (work in progress), March 2018.
[I-D.ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps] [I-D.ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps]
Mizrahi, T., Fabini, J., and A. Morton, "Guidelines for Mizrahi, T., Fabini, J., and A. Morton, "Guidelines for
Defining Packet Timestamps", draft-ietf-ntp-packet- Defining Packet Timestamps", draft-ietf-ntp-packet-
timestamps-00 (work in progress), October 2017. timestamps-01 (work in progress), March 2018.
[IEEE1588] [IEEE1588]
IEEE, "IEEE 1588 Standard for a Precision Clock IEEE, "IEEE 1588 Standard for a Precision Clock
Synchronization Protocol for Networked Measurement and Synchronization Protocol for Networked Measurement and
Control Systems Version 2", 2008. Control Systems Version 2", 2008.
[IEEE1588v1]
IEEE, "IEEE 1588 Standard for a Precision Clock
Synchronization Protocol for Networked Measurement and
Control Systems", 2002.
[ITU-T-Y.1731] [ITU-T-Y.1731]
ITU-T, "OAM functions and mechanisms for Ethernet based ITU-T, "OAM functions and mechanisms for Ethernet based
Networks", 2013. Networks", 2013.
[RFC1323] Jacobson, V., Braden, R., and D. Borman, "TCP Extensions [RFC1323] Jacobson, V., Braden, R., and D. Borman, "TCP Extensions
for High Performance", RFC 1323, DOI 10.17487/RFC1323, May for High Performance", RFC 1323, DOI 10.17487/RFC1323, May
1992, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1323>. 1992, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1323>.
[RFC3339] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet: [RFC3339] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet:
Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, July 2002, Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, July 2002,
skipping to change at page 22, line 31 skipping to change at page 17, line 16
Tal Mizrahi Tal Mizrahi
Marvell Marvell
6 Hamada st. 6 Hamada st.
Yokneam Yokneam
Israel Israel
Email: talmi@marvell.com Email: talmi@marvell.com
Joachim Fabini Joachim Fabini
Vienna University of Technology TU Wien
Gusshausstrasse 25/E389 Gusshausstrasse 25/E389
Vienna 1040 Vienna 1040
Austria Austria
Phone: +43 1 58801 38813 Phone: +43 1 58801 38813
Fax: +43 1 58801 38898 Fax: +43 1 58801 38898
Email: Joachim.Fabini@tuwien.ac.at Email: Joachim.Fabini@tuwien.ac.at
URI: http://www.tc.tuwien.ac.at/about-us/staff/joachim-fabini/ URI: http://www.tc.tuwien.ac.at/about-us/staff/joachim-fabini/
Al Morton Al Morton
 End of changes. 20 change blocks. 
305 lines changed or deleted 62 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/