Re: [Ntp] Errata RFC5905 (6501)

[Miroslav Lichvar <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 09:26:52PM +0200, David Venhoek wrote:
> Went over errata report 5601
> (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5601). From my best
> understanding, the reported section with is indeed erroneous, and s.t
> should be replaced with c.t, defined in section 9.1/12. The attached
> note seems inaccurate in the statement that a new name (t_s) is
> needed, since c.t covers the required concept. This also renders the
> additional inserted sentence non-necessary.

I think you are right.

The other errata from the same reporter (5604) suggests to multiply
the peer jitter (p.psi) included in root dispersion by 5 or other value
larger than 1. That makes some sense to me, but I'd say it really
depends on the model of the clock and that's arbitrary. IIRC there was
some discussion with David Mills about the calculation in the ntp.org
implementation and if you look at the current code, it's using for
that term the system jitter (PSI).

5978 looks good to me.

5189 seems correct, although not important for the document.

6524 might be correct too, but I find that table confusing with those
dates when the modern definition of the second and UTC didn't exist
yet.

There are some errata left. They look more difficult to analyse,
maybe later.

-- 
Miroslav Lichvar