IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Ntp] Leap second draft

Daniel Franke <dfoxfranke@gmail.com> Wed, 27 March 2019 16:46 UTC

Return-Path: <dfoxfranke@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ntp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ntp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 563261203B4 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Mar 2019 09:46:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pt_nJlKyL-v1 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Mar 2019 09:46:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x835.google.com (mail-qt1-x835.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::835]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B53BA120313 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Mar 2019 09:46:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x835.google.com with SMTP id z17so19580448qts.13 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Mar 2019 09:46:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=fl8t/aXtKsHgtb5eoRabkHvR/rjGjhfDQLgT3f2/k+Y=; b=JL+jsFLhpyYpxV7n7pM3OE/O0HmCPANJt1x8VtJJTds5PUIqARTKUjvm1ztGcdgQxR IMD9PBGTd0VKrBgxX38aVBBOx7VGhAaIBY3uLEq5E1hh55XIbAkTV6t6uKOBkEK9ZfrX V2RyTxz8Q3EWdMEmRwKrHHadmLAd9K2Z5Wqk+OrMAtZ3QBPuQ870OfsF3OqKvuvePJd+ s14lwSvInEerenNyhZ+8+UdACqa1DgpVjDWsGxnUj+ab4cS/scz6sdXU2aRRFZwa3uBy QD1TwZ3G9B6asVEGsa16jelmJ/BMkOBKGJvF3LmHKmC+nFfV7rAKgGwetatCDghYlGvo Zb6g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=fl8t/aXtKsHgtb5eoRabkHvR/rjGjhfDQLgT3f2/k+Y=; b=TBpkhyw8ytSml72FxMHCiHabJm2ElrpIzfApUBOGhDuw9/EcxS8YIRAm+dCwnLglWH QuNhJQqQFDs9OPz92VlaV6VDWWn8iksPWfg/X0ns9wTRIsrQgOeb1qCP5GDIb4MtCZ/p +8yjIQJ1tiYB3sLe3CaGzv2QGBKE3ahK+D64ljlyphNF3JGLbyoIvXpN2kV2QATxXOnq peYz5d+OoyGOAZoRMUFECM6Z8Fqkf6I0TZftdDBoXRIISkIE1QiK5AvdxsFRWxH1oEOG zHswPjtF0lkzwQsABoWO9p9pcaz96qNKS7MkfOezwhkjFhyV/B0rE/ZFQwt8f2ZZPr1q 7rfQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUq3KGDJKD0tmN/DZ4z8jzgQYfhIFYtL5FMrCTyXGwauskolfiX OHl4/sFcrQj1B1NvFKZFOMLgw1Rd4Pej/ZteYRecduiq7SV/kg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwADPY8s5Y/RmktwckPkLfBRA2yNQEGAogVXGd6gmw9cdamR2FZioEYEAFcxZcZ+qzak2+eKM6T5nSNDzavtJw=
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:196b:: with SMTP id g40mr32158674qtk.218.1553705183728; Wed, 27 Mar 2019 09:46:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Daniel Franke <dfoxfranke@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 17:46:12 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJm83bD5Ozkpg5TpkogOW6xeeNQL3ZziLO9URM7haqN8Wrp=Wg@mail.gmail.com>
To: ntp@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/-27p_xfwoInlyEVC2k5jJEXX2Qw>
Subject: [Ntp] Leap second draft
X-BeenThere: ntp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ntp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ntp>, <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ntp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ntp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp>, <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 16:46:38 -0000

I'm writing up an I-D clarifying how NTP implementations are to behave
in proximity to a leap second and also introducing an extension field
that provides better leap-second-related information than is
expressible using header fields alone, including giving the TAI-UTC
offset.

Karen, you mentioned a possible CfA for
draft-stenn-ntp-extended-information if Harlan revises it to comply
with RFC 7822 (-04 does not appear to comply). Our two drafts are
partly redundant in purpose since they both provide TAI-UTC offset and
we won't want to adopt both. Of course I think mine is the one we
should adopt, but I'll strive to get a -00 submitted promptly so that
they can be considered side-by-side without unduly delaying Harlan's
CfA.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email