IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Ntp] Antwort: Re: Minutes from the NTP/TICTOC WG session at IETF 103

dieter.sibold@ptb.de Tue, 07 August 2018 06:41 UTC

Return-Path: <dieter.sibold@ptb.de>
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 6FDD1130F5F for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Aug 2018 23:41:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 drKWHvk5gyJf for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Aug 2018 23:40:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.bs.ptb.de (mx1.bs.ptb.de [192.53.103.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2E5B130E46 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Aug 2018 23:40:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-hub.bs.ptb.de (smtpint01.bs.ptb.de [141.25.87.32]) by mx1.bs.ptb.de with ESMTP id w776csPc015242-w776csPe015242 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 7 Aug 2018 08:38:54 +0200
Received: from rose.bs.ptb.de (rose.bs.ptb.de [141.25.85.201]) by smtp-hub.bs.ptb.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A16E6AD452; Tue, 7 Aug 2018 08:38:53 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <CAJm83bByy-dU0U52nRKh3sq1GYmuQ2G7LoVn0-m5nggFCuFWbQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <OF0CF374CD.BE855701-ONC12582E1.005F6571-C12582E1.005F6578@ptb.de> <CAJm83bByy-dU0U52nRKh3sq1GYmuQ2G7LoVn0-m5nggFCuFWbQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Franke <dfoxfranke@gmail.com>
Cc: ntp@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <OF654E572A.0053F7CC-ONC12582E2.0024513C-C12582E2.00248452@ptb.de>
From: dieter.sibold@ptb.de
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2018 08:38:51 +0200
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="-------z8933_boundary_sign"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/Jftrik8MHtwPYc1RKCnMuqCKa0U>
Subject: [Ntp] Antwort: Re: Minutes from the NTP/TICTOC WG session at IETF 103
X-BeenThere: ntp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Tue, 07 Aug 2018 06:41:02 -0000

Thanks Daniel. I adjusted the minutes accordingly.

Dieter




"Daniel Franke" <dfoxfranke@gmail.com> schrieb am 06.08.2018 19:29:09:

> Von: "Daniel Franke" <dfoxfranke@gmail.com>
> An: "dieter.sibold" <dieter.sibold@ptb.de>
> Kopie: ntp@ietf.org
> Datum: 06.08.2018 19:30
> Betreff: Re: [Ntp] Minutes from the NTP/TICTOC WG session at IETF 103
> 
> On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 1:23 PM <dieter.sibold@ptb.de> wrote:
> >     - Daniel Franke: the draft should include a recommended 
> timestamp format that is not
> >       affected by leap seconds. The draft does not address leap 
seconds.
> 
> Slight correction: I called for a format that can unambiguously
> represent the time during leap seconds, not for one "unaffected" by
> them. An example would be a timestamp consisting of a pair of values,
> the first one representing the number of whole days since some epoch,
> and the second representing the number of seconds elapsed since the
> beginning of the current day. So during a leap second, the second
> value is between 86400 and 86401.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email