[Ntp] Re: Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-ntp-interleaved-modes-07: (with COMMENT)

[Miroslav Lichvar <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 11:12:21PM -0700, Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker wrote:
> A SHOULD presents an implementer with a choice.  A specification using it
> provides better service to implementers when they are fully informed of that
> choice, why one or the other option is preferred, what interoperability impact
> there is when deviating from the advice, etc.
> 
> In my case, the one I'm most interested in is this one in Section 2:
> 
> > When the server receives a request from a client, it SHOULD respond in the
> interleaved mode if the following conditions are met:
> 
> Why would an implementer opt not to comply with this SHOULD?  What are the
> implications of not doing so?

This was meant to avoid forcing servers to respond in interleaved
mode, for example to improve the timekeeping performance or server
performance. The server might be able to respond, but it prefers to
not to do that, e.g. it still has the old timestamps but it now knows
their accuracy was worse than the current non-interleaved timestamps.

-- 
Miroslav Lichvar