Skip to main content

Enterprise Profile for the Precision Time Protocol With Mixed Multicast and Unicast messages
draft-ietf-tictoc-ptp-enterprise-profile-26

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-tictoc-ptp-enterprise-profile@ietf.org, ek.ietf@gmail.com, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, tictoc-chairs@ietf.org, tictoc@ietf.org
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Enterprise Profile for the Precision Time Protocol With Mixed Multicast and Unicast messages' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-tictoc-ptp-enterprise-profile-24.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Enterprise Profile for the Precision Time Protocol With Mixed
   Multicast and Unicast messages'
  (draft-ietf-tictoc-ptp-enterprise-profile-24.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Timing over IP Connection and Transfer of
Clock Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Erik Kline and √Čric Vyncke.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tictoc-ptp-enterprise-profile/


Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   This document describes a PTP Profile for the use of the Precision
   Time Protocol in an IPv4 or IPv6 Enterprise information system
   environment.  The PTP Profile uses the End-to-End delay measurement
   mechanism, allows both multicast and unicast Delay Request and Delay
   Response messages.

Working Group Summary

   Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
   For example, was there controversy about particular points 
   or were there decisions where the consensus was
   particularly rough? 

Document Quality

   Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a 
   significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
   implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
   merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
   e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
   conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
   there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
   what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
   Review, on what date was the request posted?

Personnel

   The Document Shepherd for this document is Erik Kline. The Responsible
   Area Director is Erik Kline.

IANA Note

  (Insert IANA Note here or remove section)

RFC Editor Note