Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: Call 4/5/16 notes



Such as packet drop rate ...

Sent from Outlook Mobile




On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:38 AM -0700, "Jouni Korhonen" <jouni.korhonen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi,

What do you exactly mean by statistics?

- Jouni

4/13/2016, 10:46 AM, Bomin Li kirjoitti:
> Hi Jouni,
>
> Would there be a case that TS is used for presentation time and SN is used for statistics purpose? Having TS and SN in a data packet can better carry out this feature.
> Let us discuss it more on Tuesday meeting.
>
> Best Regards
> Bomin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: stds-1904-3-tf@xxxxxxxx [mailto:stds-1904-3-tf@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jouni Korhonen
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 8:17 PM
> To: stds-1904-3-tf@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Call 4/5/16 notes
>
> Folks,
>
> Sorry for late notes.. it has been busy lately. let me know if I missed something.
>
> Start: 4/5/2016   10:00 PDT
> End:   4/5/2016  ~11:15 PDT
>
> Present:
>       Jouni Korhonen
>       Kevin Bross
>       Ofir Mahazri
>       Richard Tse
>       Stuart Whitehead
>       Xhafer Kraniqi
>       Yasser Bajwa
>       Richard Maiden
>       Steinar Bjornstad
>       Joern-Peter Elberg
>       Ralph Bechstein
>
> Actual agenda:
>    * data path vs control path for timing of radio data (Richard Tse)
>
> Discussion:
>    * Richard Tse went through his slides on TS and SN in a same packet
>      using data path versus control packets. See the posted slides:
>      http://www.ieee1904.org/3/email/msg00451.html
>    * Examples of the different time domains and Ethernet network running
>      different clock (including different time scales).
>    * One target is to transfer the clock over other clock domains.
>      Same use case and need has been identified also in CPRI over OTN
>      work in ITU-T.
>    * It was still unclear for some people that the assumption here was
>      that the Ethernet provider would also do the CPRI-2-RoE conversion,
>      not the telco originating the CPRI feed.
>    * Discussion also whether this could be done with timestamps only, thus
>      no need to have both timestamps and sequence numbers in the packet.
>    * More data is needed on this and Kevin said to send his comments to
>      the list:
>      http://www.ieee1904.org/3/email/msg00459.html and the response
>      http://www.ieee1904.org/3/email/msg00461.html
>    * Richard Tse to provide more info on the actual use cases.
>    * Short discussion concerning the pktType related to the mail from
>      Glen on the IEEE1904.2 EtherType. The IEEE P1904.3 TF has to look
>      at possible implications to RoE header (version + pktType fields).
>
> Next Call:
>    * 4/19/2016 8AM PDT (we are back to our normal time).
>