Re: [Ntp] NTPv5 draft

Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be> Mon, 30 November 2020 20:03 UTC

Return-Path: <kurt@roeckx.be>
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 9B8B43A1105 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 12:03:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 4U-aRDcR_0Te for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 12:03:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from excelsior.roeckx.be (excelsior.roeckx.be [IPv6:2a05:7300:0:100::3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74D493A0D4B for <ntp@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 12:02:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from intrepid.roeckx.be (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by excelsior.roeckx.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C29EA8A00E4; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 20:02:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by intrepid.roeckx.be (Postfix, from userid 1000) id F22311FE0DDA; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 21:02:40 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 21:02:40 +0100
From: Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>
To: Dieter Sibold <dsibold.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com>, ntp@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20201130200240.GI971977@roeckx.be>
References: <20201111161947.GG1559650@localhost> <AA848C67-CFB7-43FC-B190-FD3911360373@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <AA848C67-CFB7-43FC-B190-FD3911360373@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/9TNkrI_ZtKJEftYps9qL2Li6GNc>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] NTPv5 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: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 20:03:26 -0000

On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 08:12:06PM +0100, Dieter Sibold wrote:
> 
> 3. Traceability
> 
> It would make sense that the v5-packets optionally provide information about
> the uncertainty of the timestamps taken. These formally for establishing
> traceability.

The NTPv4 packet contains 3 fields that's related to the
uncertainty: precision, root delay, root dispersion. I'm not sure if
anybody is using the precision for anything, but it also has an
effect on the uncertainty.

I'm wondering if the combination of those 3 fields is useful, and
if we need other fields to replace them. We at least need some
specification on how to calculate the values. Is the root distance
a mean, filtered or last value? Does the dispersion field have a 95%
(k=2) confidence interval?

> Additionally, in order to maintain traceability during the
> time period in which leap smearing is applied the client needs to obtain the
> necessary information to calculate the offset between UTC and smeared time.
> This also is mandatory to maintain traceability.

I think the document, at least the version in git, has an
extension for that.


Kurt