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

[Harlan Stenn <[e-mail]>]

On 4/16/2020 2:44 PM, Daniel Franke wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 5:13 PM Harlan Stenn <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> There are cases with regulatory requirements here.
> 
> What regulations govern NTP's clock synchronization algorithm?

Who said the regulations govern NTP's clock synchronization algorithm?

>> There are liability risks.
> 
> Who risks being liable to whom for what?

If there is a requirement that time be disciplined by NTP and the
governing NTP spec describes algorithms and behavior and you are running
something that behaves differently, then you are non-compliant, and liable.

If you KNOWINGLY run something that is non-compliant, this may escalate
the violation to the level of fraud.  This may trigger treble damages.

But that's not quite the point here.

More to the point, NTPv4 and all of its predecessors specified:

- the packet format
- the algorithms
- a set of behavioral limits and specifications

This means others were allowed to write specifications (regulations)
assuming and/or relying on "NTP" - the packet format, algorithms, and
behavior.

Removing or separating the algorithmic and behavioral specifications
from the NTP specification at best cost-shifts that discussion
elsewhere, and I submit it does this to groups that are likely
completely unaware that they can no longer rely on behavior that they
had no idea they previously relied on.

Are you planning to just do a protocol spec and "do the algorithms and
behavior spec later", or worse yet, let others do that if they think
it's important?

-- 
Harlan Stenn <[e-mail]>
http://networktimefoundation.org - be a member!