Re: [Ntp] Antw: [EXT] Re: Timescales

[Miroslav Lichvar <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 04:11:32PM +0100, Magnus Danielson wrote:
> In my mind, the train to discuss the need for leap-second information
> has already gone. Too many applications start to need it for them to
> function well, and if NTPv5 is not able to deliver that, then it should
> either be redesigned to just dropped as an effort and focus on a
> revision of NTP that does support it, because what is needed is a
> solution that supports this. In the meanwhile, PTP has the needed
> support and we could just drop NTP and go all PTP then. Personally I
> think there is great value in NTP for many applications, if only it can
> handle this properly along getting secure with NTS.

I don't understand everything you said, but I think we are in
agreement. My draft supports both UTC and TAI. It also provides the
TAI-UTC offset when known.

That's similar to PTP. It can work in TAI or the "arbitrary"
timescale, typically UTC. There is a field for the TAI-UTC offset and
there is a flag to indicate it is valid.

-- 
Miroslav Lichvar