IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ntp] The bump, or why NTP v5 must specify impulse response

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Thu, 16 April 2020 13:32 UTC

Return-Path: <dot@dotat.at>
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 25F893A0829 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 06:32:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 BTPfXLJnu9_5 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 06:32:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppsw-41.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-41.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.141]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C0303A0820 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 06:32:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://help.uis.cam.ac.uk/email-scanner-virus
Received: from grey.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.57.57]:50510) by ppsw-41.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.139]:25) with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) id 1jP4cm-0003k2-Sm (Exim 4.92.3) (return-path <dot@dotat.at>); Thu, 16 Apr 2020 14:32:12 +0100
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 14:32:12 +0100
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
To: Harlan Stenn <stenn@nwtime.org>
cc: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Dieter Sibold <dsibold.ietf@gmail.com>, Doug Arnold <doug.arnold@meinberg-usa.com>, Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>, NTP WG <ntp@ietf.org>, Daniel Franke <dfoxfranke@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <bc7920e2-dc81-ba7f-ec24-7926cda8589d@nwtime.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.2004161430210.5561@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <CACsn0c=zzDKP6iBjPJWGF0rkqSaY3AY738ynGwDZO14sdBJ-Bg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJm83bB2A3VUxXX47Y0ubmS9Xne7PRSyV_xHY_D9YvHjqE-vFA@mail.gmail.com> <CACsn0cm3jpKZTUQ=novTgVaFhc1xCJgmUF3oOgdrzQa-HgOCUQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJm83bAqbMMs2W3SyH+3c17wcC85paY4-_jk2SxczgsxBLyYyA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJm83bAQeR_6U3jgmbWzdus3pu+OO2_KP+M9RtbCFYOfDQy4dw@mail.gmail.com> <DB8PR02MB56111CCA23CDCF97A3C9F3E8CFDD0@DB8PR02MB5611.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com> <F7E5836A-4C7A-4A1A-B769-65EADE2C8F5C@gmail.com> <7d909ae3-a830-1270-6920-fa088a56525e@nwtime.org> <6C9832A9-E18B-4DE2-934F-9E471FC22F7B@akamai.com> <bc7920e2-dc81-ba7f-ec24-7926cda8589d@nwtime.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/WJFx5PzWKM93dmZIWc5IDYMF_u0>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] The bump, or why NTP v5 must specify impulse response
X-BeenThere: ntp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 13:32:22 -0000

Harlan Stenn <stenn@nwtime.org> wrote:
>
> NTP is a combination of two parts:
>
> - the protocol/packet structure
> - algorithmic and response behavior

I got the impression from https://chrony.tuxfamily.org/comparison.html
that not all implementations use the same algorithms.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
Hebrides: Variable 3 or less, becoming east or northeast, 3 to 5. Moderate,
occasionally rough at first. Fair. Good.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email