IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ntp] Antw: Re: Antw: [EXT] Re: CLOCK_TAI (was NTPv5: big picture)

Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net> Mon, 11 January 2021 07:48 UTC

Return-Path: <hmurray@megapathdsl.net>
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 0BEC73A16A0 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Jan 2021 23:48:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.037
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.037 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=1.951, PDS_RDNS_DYNAMIC_FP=0.001, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.982, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 j0VA_v1KsT6X for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Jan 2021 23:48:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net [64.139.1.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0E2B3A169E for <ntp@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Jan 2021 23:48:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shuksan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F7E640605C; Sun, 10 Jan 2021 23:48:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 with nmh-1.3
To: Ulrich Windl <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
cc: Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net>, "ntp@ietf.org" <ntp@ietf.org>
From: Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net>
In-Reply-To: Message from "Ulrich Windl" <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de> of "Mon, 11 Jan 2021 08:13:33 +0100." <5FFBFA9D020000A10003E16A@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2021 23:48:08 -0800
Message-Id: <20210111074808.4F7E640605C@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/A73s8w21PnJVVcMME07WWBMa5C8>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] Antw: Re: Antw: [EXT] Re: CLOCK_TAI (was NTPv5: big picture)
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, 11 Jan 2021 07:48:10 -0000

Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de said:
> Why not a week before and a week after? I mean there are many arguments for
> and against different intervalks. 

It has to be long enough and the transition from normal-to-smear gentle enough 
so that ntpd will follow the smearing servers.  As long as the interval is 
long enough, how long doesn't matter.  The big boys agreed on a number.  There 
is no reason to pick a different one.

Some of the early work used cosine rather than linear so the transition was 
smooth.  That complication was unnecessary and dropped.


-- 
These are my opinions.  I hate spam.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email