NTP Over PTP
draft-ietf-ntp-over-ptp-08

Internet Engineering Task Force                               M. Lichvar
Internet-Draft                                                   Red Hat
Intended status: Standards Track                        25 November 2025
Expires: 29 May 2026

                              NTP Over PTP
                       draft-ietf-ntp-over-ptp-08

Abstract

   This document specifies a transport for the client-server and
   symmetric modes of the Network Time Protocol (NTP) that encapsulates
   NTP messages in messages of the Precision Time Protocol (PTP).  This
   transport enables hardware timestamping in network interface
   controllers that can timestamp only PTP messages and enables delay
   corrections in PTP transparent clocks.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 29 May 2026.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Lichvar                    Expires 29 May 2026                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                NTP Over PTP                 November 2025

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Comparison with PTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.2.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   2.  PTP transport for NTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Network Correction Extension Field  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.1.  New Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.2.  NTP Extension Field Registration  . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   6.  Implementation Status - RFC EDITOR: REMOVE BEFORE
           PUBLICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     6.1.  chrony  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

1.  Introduction

   The Precision Time Protocol (PTP) [IEEE1588-2019] was designed for
   highly accurate synchronization of clocks in local networks.  It
   relies on hardware timestamping support in all network devices
   involved in the synchronization (e.g. network interface controllers,
   switches, and routers) to eliminate the impact of software,
   processing, and queueing delays on the accuracy of offset and delay
   measurements.

   PTP was originally designed for multicast communication.  Later,
   support for unicast messaging was added, which is useful in larger
   networks with partial on-path PTP support (e.g. telecom profiles
   G.8265.1 [G8265-1] and G.8275.2 [G8275-2]).

   The Network Time Protocol [RFC5905] does not rely on hardware
   timestamping support, but implementations can use it if it is
   available to avoid the impact of software, processing, and queueing
   delays, similarly to PTP.  When comparing PTP with the timing modes
   of NTP, PTP is functionally closest to the NTP broadcast mode.

Lichvar                    Expires 29 May 2026                  [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                NTP Over PTP                 November 2025

   An issue for NTP is hardware that can specifically timestamp only PTP
   packets.  This limitation comes from a hardware design that can
   provide receive timestamps only at a limited rate instead of the
   maximum rate possible at the network link speed.  To avoid missing
   receive timestamps when the interface is receiving other traffic at a
   high rate, a filter is implemented in the hardware to inspect each
   received packet and capture a timestamp only for packets that need
   it.

   The hardware filter can be usually configured for specific PTP
   transports (e.g. UDP over IPv4, UDP over IPv6, 802.3) and sometimes
   even the PTP message type (e.g. sync message or delay request) to
   further reduce the timestamping rate on the server or client side in
   the case of multicast messaging, but it typically cannot be
   configured to timestamp NTP messages sent to the UDP port 123.

   Another issue for NTP is missing hardware support in network switches
   and routers.  With PTP the devices operate either as boundary clocks
   or transparent clocks.  Boundary clocks are analogous to NTP clients
   that work also as servers for other clients.  Transparent clocks are
   much simpler.  They only measure the delay in forwarding of PTP
   packets and write this delay to the correction field of either the
   packet itself (one-step mode) or a later packet in the PTP exchange
   (two-step mode).  Transparent clocks are specific to the PTP delay
   mechanism used in the network, either end-to-end (E2E) or peer-to-
   peer (P2P).

   This document specifies a new transport for NTP to enable hardware
   timestamping on NICs that can timestamp only PTP messages and also
   take advantage of one-step E2E PTP unicast transparent clocks.  It
   adds a new type-length-value (TLV) for PTP to contain NTP messages
   and adds a new extension field for NTP to provide clients and peers
   with the correction of their NTP requests from transparent clocks.
   The NTP broadcast mode is not supported.

   The use of PTP messages requires that protocol rules of IEEE1588
   [IEEE1588-2019] are followed.  NTP over PTP does not require other
   PTP clocks to be present in the network.  It does not disrupt their
   operation if they are present.  If the network uses one-step E2E
   transparent clocks, NTP clients and peers using PTP for transport can
   reach the same or better accuracy as PTP clocks using PTP for
   synchronization.  Hosts in a network can use PTP for synchronization
   in one domain and transport of NTP messages in another domain at the
   same time.

Lichvar                    Expires 29 May 2026                  [Page 3]
Internet-Draft                NTP Over PTP                 November 2025

1.1.  Comparison with PTP

   The client-server mode of NTP, even with the PTP transport, has
   multiple advantages over PTP using multicast or unicast messaging:

   *  NTP is more secure.  Existing security mechanisms specified for
      NTP like Network Time Security [RFC8915] still work over the PTP
      transport.  It is more difficult to secure PTP against delay
      attacks due to the sync message not being an immediate response to
      a client request.  The PTP unicast mode allows an almost-infinite
      traffic amplification, which can be exploited for denial-of-
      service attacks and can only be limited by security mechanisms
      requiring client authentication.

   *  NTP is more resilient to failures.  Each client can use multiple
      servers and detect failed sources in its source selection.  In PTP
      a single hardware or software failure can disrupt the whole PTP
      domain.  Multiple independent domains have to be used to handle
      any failure.

   *  NTP is better suited for synchronization in networks that do not
      have full on-path PTP support, or where timestamping errors do not
      have a symmetric distribution (e.g. due to sensitivity to network
      load).  NTP does not assume network delay is constant and the rate
      of measurements in opposite directions is symmetric.  It can
      filter the measurements more effectively and is not sensitive to
      asymmetrically distributed network delays and timestamping errors.
      PTP has to measure the offset and delay separately to enable
      multicast messaging, which is needed to reduce the transmit
      timestamping rate.

   *  NTP needs fewer messages to get the same number of timestamps.  It
      uses less network bandwidth than PTP using unicast messaging.

   *  NTP provides clients with an estimate of the maximum error of the
      clock (root distance).

   The disadvantage of NTP is transmit timestamping rate growing with
   the number of clients.  A server that is limited by the hardware
   timestamping rate cannot provide a highly accurate time service to
   the same number of clients as with PTP using multicast messaging.

Lichvar                    Expires 29 May 2026                  [Page 4]
Internet-Draft                NTP Over PTP                 November 2025

1.2.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

2.  PTP transport for NTP

   A new TLV is defined for PTP to contain NTP messages in the NTP
   client (3), server (4), and symmetric modes (1 and 2).  Using other
   NTP modes in the TLV is not specified.  Any transport specified for
   PTP that supports unicast messaging, and an IPv4 or IPv6 mapping, can
   be used for NTP over PTP.

   The NTP TLV MUST be included in a unicast PTP event message.  An
   event message is required to enable the PTP-specific hardware
   timestamping and corrections of transparent clocks.  The PTP message
   MUST conform to PTP version 2 [IEEE1588-2008], PTP version 2.1
   [IEEE1588-2019], or any future version of the PTP specification that
   allows the NTP TLV to be included as an organization-specific TLV.

   The NTP TLV is an organization-specific TLV having the following
   fields (with octets in network order):

   *  type is 0x8000 (ORGANIZATION_EXTENSION_DO_NOT_PROPAGATE) in PTP
      version 2.1, or 0x0003 (ORGANIZATION_EXTENSION) in PTP version 2

   *  lengthField is 8 + length of the NTP message

   *  organizationId is 00-00-5E (OUI assigned to IANA by IEEE
      Registration Authority)

   *  organizationSubType is [[TBD]]

   *  dataField contains two zero octets for 32-bit alignment followed
      by the NTP message, which would normally be the UDP payload

   An NTP client or peer using the PTP transport sends NTP requests
   contained as the NTP TLV in PTP messages.

   An NTP server or peer responding to an NTP request received over the
   PTP transport MUST form its response as the NTP TLV using the same
   PTP transport.  To avoid traffic amplification, the server or peer
   MUST NOT send the response if the PTP message containing the NTP
   response is longer than the PTP message containing the NTP request.
   This requirement impacts Autokey [RFC5906], which has some responses

Lichvar                    Expires 29 May 2026                  [Page 5]
Internet-Draft                NTP Over PTP                 November 2025

   longer than requests (e.g. certificate exchange).  The request SHOULD
   be padded with the PTP PAD TLV (type 0x8008) to the maximum expected
   length of the response to enable the transmission of the response.

   If the NTP response is expected to be used for synchronization (e.g.
   it is not an error message), the PTP message containing the NTP
   response SHOULD have the same length as the PTP message containing
   the NTP request, using the PTP PAD TLV if needed, to avoid an
   asymmetric delay in networks without full on-path PTP support.

   The PTP version 2.1 [IEEE1588-2019] specification states that "A
   domain shall define the scope of PTP message communication, state,
   operations, data sets, and timescale.  Within a PTP Network, a domain
   is identified by two attributes: domainNumber and sdoId.".  In the
   context of NTP over PTP version 2.1, this means that the NTP servers,
   clients, and peers MUST verify that received PTP messages have the
   domainNumber and sdoId that are expected to be used by NTP over PTP
   in the network.  The domainNumber SHOULD be 123 by default, and sdoId
   SHOULD be 0.  This domainNumber 123 is not commonly used by PTP
   profiles, and so is less likely to interfere with any other PTP
   operation that might be running in the network.  The domainNumber
   SHOULD be configurable to allow moving NTP over PTP to another domain
   if a conflict with a PTP profile using this domainNumber and sdoId
   needs to be avoided.  However, all servers, clients, and peers using
   NTP over PTP in the network need to use the same domainNumber and
   sdoId to be able to communicate with each other.

   If the UDP transport is used for PTP, the UDP source and destination
   port numbers SHOULD be the PTP event port (319).  If the client
   implemented port randomization [RFC9109], requests and/or responses
   would not get a hardware receive timestamp due to the hardware filter
   matching only the PTP event port.

   Any authenticator fields included in the NTP messages MUST be
   calculated only over the NTP message following the header of the NTP
   TLV.  Other data in the PTP message (outside of the NTP TLV) are not
   protected.  With the exception of the PTP correction field requiring
   special handling as described in the following section, the other PTP
   fields are used only for the transport of the NTP message and have no
   impact on security of NTP, similarly to the IP and UDP headers.

Lichvar                    Expires 29 May 2026                  [Page 6]
Internet-Draft                NTP Over PTP                 November 2025

   Receive and transmit timestamps contained in the NTP messages SHOULD
   NOT be adjusted for the beginning of the NTP data in the PTP message.
   To minimize the impact of different link speeds on accuracy in
   networks without full on-path PTP support, the transmit timestamp
   SHOULD correspond to the PTP message timestamp point (i.e. beginning
   of the first symbol after the Ethernet start of frame delimiter) and
   the receive timestamp SHOULD be transposed from the PTP message
   timestamp point to the ending of the reception (e.g. ending of the
   last symbol of the Ethernet frame check sequence).

3.  Network Correction Extension Field

   One-step E2E PTP transparent clocks modify the correction field in
   the header of the PTP event messages containing NTP messages.  To be
   able to verify and apply the corrections to an NTP measurement, the
   client or peer needs to know the correction of both the request and
   response.  The correction of the response is in the PTP header of the
   message itself.  The correction of the request is provided by the
   server or other peer in a new NTP extension field included in the
   response.

   The format of the Network Correction Extension Field is shown in
   Figure 1.

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Type = [[TBD]]                |             Length            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +                  Network Correction (64 bits)                 +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   .                                                               .
   .                            Padding                            .
   .                                                               .
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

           Figure 1: Format of Network Correction Extension Field

   The length of the padding is the minimum required to make a valid
   extension field in the used version of NTP.  In NTPv4 that is 16
   octets to get a 28-octet extension field following RFC 7822
   [RFC7822].

Lichvar                    Expires 29 May 2026                  [Page 7]
Internet-Draft                NTP Over PTP                 November 2025

   The Network Correction field in the extension field uses the 64-bit
   NTP timestamp format (resolution of about 1/4th of a nanosecond).
   The correction field in PTP header has a different format (64-bit
   nanoseconds + 16-bit fraction).

   The value of the NTP network correction is the sum of PTP corrections
   provided by transparent clocks and the time it takes to receive the
   packet (i.e. packet length including the frame check sequence divided
   by the link speed).

   The reason for not using the PTP correction alone is to avoid an
   asymmetric correction when the server and client, or peers, are
   connected to the network with different link speeds.  The receive
   duration included in the NTP correction cancels out the transposition
   of PTP receive timestamp corresponding to the beginning of the
   reception to NTP receive timestamp corresponding to the end of the
   reception.

   The Figure 2 shows the NTP timestamps, transmit/receive durations,
   and processing and queuing delays included in PTP corrections for an
   NTP exchange made over two PTP transparent clocks.  The link speed is
   increasing on the network path from the client to the server.  The
   propagation delays in cables are not shown.

   NTP server                          T2  T3
                --------------------|==|----|==|--------------------
   PTP TC #2                      |~|          |~|
                             |====|              |====|
   PTP TC #1               |~|                        |~|
                --|========|----------------------------|========|--
   NTP client    T1                                              T4

   PTP correction |========|~|====|~|       |==|~|====|~|
   NTP correction |========|~|====|~|==|    |==|~|====|~|========|

                      Figure 2: PTP vs NTP Correction

   When an NTP server that supports the PTP transport receives an NTP
   request containing the Network Correction Extension Field, it SHOULD
   respond with the extension field providing the network correction of
   the client's request.  The server MUST ignore the value of the
   network correction in the request.

   An NTP client or peer that supports the PTP transport and is
   configured to use the network correction for the association SHOULD
   include the extension field in its NTP requests.  In the case of a
   client, the correction value in the extension field SHOULD be always
   zero.

Lichvar                    Expires 29 May 2026                  [Page 8]
Internet-Draft                NTP Over PTP                 November 2025

   When the client or peer has the network correction of both the
   request and response, it can correct the measured NTP peer delay and
   offset:

   *  delta_c = delta - (nc_rs + nc_rq - dur_rs - dur_rq) * (1 -
      freq_tc)

   *  theta_c = theta + (nc_rs - nc_rq) / 2

   where

   *  delta is the NTP peer delay from RFC 5905

   *  theta is the NTP offset from RFC 5905

   *  nc_rq is the network correction of the request

   *  nc_rs is the network correction of the response

   *  dur_rq is the transmit duration of the request

   *  dur_rs is the receive duration of the response

   *  freq_tc is the maximum assumed frequency error of transparent
      clocks

   The corrected delay (delta_c) and offset (theta_c) MUST NOT be
   accepted for synchronization if any of delta_c, nc_rs, and nc_rq is
   negative.  This requirement limits the error caused by faulty
   transparent clocks and on-path attackers.

   Root delay (DELTA) MUST NOT be corrected to not make the maximum
   assumed error (root distance) dependent on accurate network
   corrections.

   The scaling by the freq_tc constant (e.g. 100 ppm) is needed to make
   room for errors in corrections made by transparent clocks running
   faster than true time and avoid samples with larger corrections from
   getting a shorter delay than samples with smaller corrections, which
   would negatively impact their filtering and weighting.

Lichvar                    Expires 29 May 2026                  [Page 9]
Internet-Draft                NTP Over PTP                 November 2025

   The dur_rq and dur_rs values make the corrected peer delay correspond
   to a direct connection to the server.  If they were not used, a
   perfectly corrected delay on a short network path would be too close
   to zero and frequently negative due to frequency offset between the
   client and server.  Note that NTP peers and PTP clocks using the E2E
   delay mechanism are more sensitive to frequency offsets due to longer
   measurement intervals.  If dur_rq is unknown, it MAY be assumed to be
   equal to dur_rs.

4.  Acknowledgements

   The author would like to thank Doug Arnold, Rodney Cummings, Martin
   Langer, and Robert Sparks for their comments and suggestions.

5.  IANA Considerations

5.1.  New Registry

   IANA is requested to create on the "IANA OUI Ethernet Numbers" web
   page a new registry "IANA PTP TLV Subtypes" for organizationSubType
   values of PTP TLVs using 00-00-5E as the organizationId (i.e. the
   Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI) assigned to IANA by the IEEE
   Registration Authority).

   The entries in the registry have the following fields:

      Subtype (REQUIRED): An integer in the range 0-0xFFFFFF

      Description (REQUIRED): A short text description

      Reference (REQUIRED): A reference to a document describing the
      IANA PTP TLV

   The Subtype range is split into the following three ranges with
   different allocation policies:

      0-0xFFFF: IETF Review

      0x10000-0x7FFFFF: Specification Required

      0x800000-0xFFFFFE: Reserved for Experimental and Private Use

   The initial contents of the registry are as follows:

Lichvar                    Expires 29 May 2026                 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft                NTP Over PTP                 November 2025

   +===================+===============================+===============+
   | Subtype           | Description                   | Reference     |
   +===================+===============================+===============+
   | 0x0               | Reserved                      | [[this memo]] |
   +-------------------+-------------------------------+---------------+
   | 0x1               | Network Time Protocol         | [[this memo]] |
   |                   | Message                       |               |
   +-------------------+-------------------------------+---------------+
   | 0x2-0x7FFFFF      | Unassigned                    |               |
   +-------------------+-------------------------------+---------------+
   | 0x800000-0xFFFFFE | Reserved for Experimental     | [[this memo]] |
   |                   | and Private Use               |               |
   +-------------------+-------------------------------+---------------+
   | 0xFFFFFF          | Reserved                      | [[this memo]] |
   +-------------------+-------------------------------+---------------+

                                  Table 1

   Changes in the Specification Required range are approved by a
   designated expert (DE).  The DE should be familiar with [RFC8126]
   (particularly section 5) and the current PTP specifications.  The DE
   should verify that the specification of the organization-specific TLV
   identifed by the assigned Subtype exists and is publicly available.
   The purpose and use of the TLV should be sufficiently clear to enable
   interoperating implementations, without harming the protocol or the
   ecosystem.

5.2.  NTP Extension Field Registration

   IANA is requested to allocate the following field in the NTP
   Extension Field Types Registry (https://www.iana.org/assignments/ntp-
   parameters/ntp-parameters.xhtml#ntp-parameters-3) defined by
   [RFC5905]:

            +============+====================+===============+
            | Field Type | Meaning            | Reference     |
            +============+====================+===============+
            | [[TBD]]    | Network Correction | [[this memo]] |
            +------------+--------------------+---------------+

                                  Table 2

Lichvar                    Expires 29 May 2026                 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft                NTP Over PTP                 November 2025

6.  Implementation Status - RFC EDITOR: REMOVE BEFORE PUBLICATION

   This section records the status of known implementations of the
   protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
   Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in RFC 7942.
   The description of implementations in this section is intended to
   assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
   RFCs.  Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
   here does not imply endorsement by the IETF.  Furthermore, no effort
   has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
   supplied by IETF contributors.  This is not intended as, and must not
   be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
   features.  Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
   exist.

   According to RFC 7942, "this will allow reviewers and working groups
   to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
   running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
   and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
   It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
   they see fit".

6.1.  chrony

   chrony (https://chrony-project.org) added experimental support for
   NTP over PTP in version 4.2.  As the type of the NTP TLV, it uses
   0x2023 from the experimental "do not propagate" range.

   It was tested on Linux with the following network controllers, which
   have hardware timestamping limited to PTP packets:

      Intel XL710 (i40e driver) - works

      Intel X540-AT2 (ixgbe driver) - works

      Intel 82576 (igb driver) - works

      Broadcom BCM5720 (tg3 driver) - works

      Broadcom BCM57810 (bnx2x driver) - does not timestamp unicast PTP
      packets

      Solarflare SFC9250 (sfc driver) - works

   The network correction was tested with the following switches which
   support operation as a one-step E2E PTP unicast transparent clock:

      FS.COM IES3110-8TF-R - works

Lichvar                    Expires 29 May 2026                 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft                NTP Over PTP                 November 2025

      Juniper QFX5200-32C-32Q - works

7.  Security Considerations

   The PTP transport prevents NTP clients from randomizing their source
   port as described in [RFC9109], because both requests and responses
   need to be sent to the PTP port in order to get a hardware receive
   timestamp and corrections from PTP transparent clocks.

   The corrections provided by PTP transparent clocks cannot be
   authenticated.  On-path attackers can modify the correction field,
   but only corrections smaller than the measured delay are accepted by
   clients.  The impact is comparable to the impact of delaying
   unmodified NTP messages.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [IEEE1588-2019]
              Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, "IEEE
              std. 1588-2019, "IEEE Standard for a Precision Clock
              Synchronization Protocol for Networked Measurement and
              Control Systems."", November 2019, <https://www.ieee.org>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC5905]  Mills, D., Martin, J., Ed., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch,
              "Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms
              Specification", RFC 5905, DOI 10.17487/RFC5905, June 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5905>.

   [RFC7822]  Mizrahi, T. and D. Mayer, "Network Time Protocol Version 4
              (NTPv4) Extension Fields", RFC 7822, DOI 10.17487/RFC7822,
              March 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7822>.

   [RFC8126]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
              Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
              RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

Lichvar                    Expires 29 May 2026                 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft                NTP Over PTP                 November 2025

8.2.  Informative References

   [G8265-1]  ITU-T, "Precision time protocol telecom profile for
              frequency synchronization", Recommendation G.8265.1/
              Y.1365.1, November 2022,
              <https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.8265.1-202211-I/en>.

   [G8275-2]  ITU-T, "Precision time protocol telecom profile for
              frequency synchronization", Recommendation G.8275.2/
              Y.1369.2, November 2022,
              <https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.8275.2-202211-I/en>.

   [IEEE1588-2008]
              Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, "IEEE
              std. 1588-2008, "IEEE Standard for a Precision Clock
              Synchronization Protocol for Networked Measurement and
              Control Systems."", July 2008, <https://www.ieee.org>.

   [RFC5906]  Haberman, B., Ed. and D. Mills, "Network Time Protocol
              Version 4: Autokey Specification", RFC 5906,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5906, June 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5906>.

   [RFC8915]  Franke, D., Sibold, D., Teichel, K., Dansarie, M., and R.
              Sundblad, "Network Time Security for the Network Time
              Protocol", RFC 8915, DOI 10.17487/RFC8915, September 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8915>.

   [RFC9109]  Gont, F., Gont, G., and M. Lichvar, "Network Time Protocol
              Version 4: Port Randomization", RFC 9109,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9109, August 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9109>.

Author's Address

   Miroslav Lichvar
   Red Hat
   Email: mlichvar@redhat.com

Lichvar                    Expires 29 May 2026                 [Page 14]