[Ntp] Antw: I-D Action: draft-stenn-ntp-leap-smear-refid-02.txt

>>> <internet-drafts@ietf.org> schrieb am 26.03.2019 um 01:41 in Nachricht
<155356087594.24635.3189427633725585673@ietfa.amsl.com>:

> A New Internet‑Draft is available from the on‑line Internet‑Drafts
directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Network Time Protocol WG of the IETF.
> 
>         Title           : Network Time Protocol Leap Smear REFID
>         Author          : Harlan Stenn
> 	Filename        : draft‑stenn‑ntp‑leap‑smear‑refid‑02.txt
> 	Pages           : 5
> 	Date            : 2019‑03‑25
> 
> Abstract:
>    Leap Seconds are part of UTC.  NTP timestamps are based on POSIX
>    timestamps, which require each day to have exactly 86,400 seconds per
>    day.  Some applications and environments choose to "smear" leap
>    second corrections over a period that can last up to 24 hours' time,
>    and implement NTP servers that offer smeared time to clients asking
>    them for the time.
> 
>    Both NTP clients and operators have no current way to tell if an NTP
>    server is offering leap‑smeared time or not.  This is a problem.

What about "...eared time or not, causing problems."?
Does it make sense to distinquish between clients and operators? I mean most
RFCs do not deal with problems humans may have: If the client (software) is
fixed, the operator should be happy, too ;-)

> 
>    Similarly, an NTP server may choose to offer leap‑smeared time to
>    clients that do not appear to know that a leap event is in‑process.
>    This is a problem.

Maybe add the kind of problem to the abstract: The frequency correction may
get confused, and an additional leap second might be applied in non-smear-aware
clients.

> 
>    This proposal offers a mechanism that provides a simple and clean
>    solution to problems, by giving a way that clients (and operators)
>    can trivially ask for leap‑smeared time and detect a server that is
>    offering leap‑smeared time.

The more often I read about that, the less is like the "smear" term. Is
another maybe more technical term possible?

Regards,
Ulrich

> 
> 
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft‑stenn‑ntp‑leap‑smear‑refid/ 
> 
> There are also htmlized versions available at:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft‑stenn‑ntp‑leap‑smear‑refid‑02 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft‑stenn‑ntp‑leap‑smear‑refid‑02 
> 
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft‑stenn‑ntp‑leap‑smear‑refid‑02 
> 
> 
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> 
> Internet‑Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet‑drafts/ 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ntp mailing list
> ntp@ietf.org 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp 