Re: [Ntp] NTPv5: big picture

[Hal Murray <[e-mail]>]

>> I'd like the basic document not to include the words "leap second", except 
>> possibly for a chunk that says we-don't-do-that, look-over-there.
> I think that might be a mistake, even if I can understand the ambition. I
> think carrying the leap-second difference TAI-UTC is mandatory, and as such,
> the reference to that other document, if indeed handled as separate
> documents, needs to say so. 

I think this is exposing an interesting area we need to work on.

Both TAI-UTC and security have been nominated as requirements.  Yet a TAI 
based protocol makes perfect sense without either.

I think it will be inappropriate to just drop a MUST in the description.  We 
need a way to say that most of today's implementations will need them but 
there are reasonable use cases today and things may change.  I don't want the 
baggage of a MUST to complicate or distort future work.


-- 
These are my opinions.  I hate spam.