Re: [Ntp] NTPv5: big picture

[Magnus Danielson <[e-mail]>]

Daniel,

On 2021-01-05 17:30, Daniel Franke wrote:
> I'd rather just add more bits to the timestamp so that ±100 years of
> range doesn't have to be a concern.
>
I do like the way you think. In one design I made, I made it Y10k safe,
because I could. Throwing a few bits on it ended up being cheap, and
with current life expectancy of me considering current lack of
time-travels and life-extension techniques, I think I've moved the
wrap-around sufficiently far out that neither me or the technology will
be around. All for a handful of bits.

Now, if we going to follow James suggestion of some timestamp after some
of us was born, the PTP epoch is actual before I was born, and I turn 50
soon.

Cheers,
Magnus

> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021, 11:25 James Browning <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     On Tue, Jan 5, 2021, at 8:09 AM Daniel Franke
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>         On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 11:00 AM James Browning
>         <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>             My shortlist is to shift the epoch to 2020, (a)symmetric
>             authentication
>             to extensions, and the timescale to TAI based not UTC based.
>
>
>         Can we have something less cursed? The engineers of our civil
>         calendar chose the birth of their savior, and you want to
>         choose *2020*?
>
>
>     (/topic)I picked something with 136 years of future instead of
>     throwing 50, 120, or 2020 years into the past.(topic)
>
>     Do you have a better year that is _after_ some of us were born?  
>     _______________________________________________
>     ntp mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ntp mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp