[Ntp] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5905 (5604)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Wed, 16 January 2019 00:26 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
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 84713130F32 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 16:26:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 k9uUfhtl4vRM for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 16:26:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BCACF12D4F2 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 16:26:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 28CB0B82B0B; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 16:25:58 -0800 (PST)
To: mills@udel.edu, jrmii@isc.org, jack.burbank@jhuapl.edu, william.kasch@jhuapl.edu, suresh@kaloom.com, terry.manderson@icann.org, dsibold.ietf@gmail.com, odonoghue@isoc.org
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: takashi.nakamoto@nao.ac.jp, ntp@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20190116002558.28CB0B82B0B@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 16:25:58 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/XoGWJVK7dxRCfEiZcchmKMSNE9g>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 10:06:16 -0800
Subject: [Ntp] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5905 (5604)
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: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 00:26:03 -0000

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5905,
"Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms Specification".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5604

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Takashi Nakamoto <takashi.nakamoto@nao.ac.jp>

Section: 11.2.3.

Original Text
-------------
                  | s.rootdisp  <-- p.epsilon_r + p.epsilon + |
                  |                 p.psi + PHI * (s.t - p.t) |
                  |                 + |THETA|                 |

Corrected Text
--------------
                  | s.rootdisp  <-- p.epsilon_r + p.epsilon   |
                  |                 + 5 * p.psi +             |
                  |                 + PHI * (s.t - p.t)       |
                  |                 + |THETA|                 |


Notes
-----
In addition to the correction proposed in Errata ID 5601, I think that the formula to calculate the dispersion should be revised. The term "p.psi" should be multiplied by not one, but a larger value.

This is because the dispersion is defined as the statistics that represent the maximum error, so when it is calculated, it should take into account the maximum errors in the offset estimation. However, the jitter p.psi is defined as the RMS average of the offset values theta_j relative to theta_0, so the term "p.psi" does not represent the maximum error caused by the distribution of the offset values.

If we assume that the offset value follows the uniform distribution, the error bound is represented as sqrt(3) * p.psi. So, at least, the term "p.psi" should be multiplied by sqrt(3). There is arbitrarity in choice of the distribution type, so depending on the distribution type the factor may change. For example, if the normal distribution is assumed, 5 * p.psi gives us 99.99994% confidence. Assuming that the system variable is updated every 16 seconds, the actual offset may be outside the range [theta_0 - 5 * p.psi, theta_0 + 5 * p.psi] approximately once a year. It should be sufficient for usual Internet applications, though someone may think that the factor "5" may not be sufficient depending on the application.

Instructions:
-------------
This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party  
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 

--------------------------------------
RFC5905 (draft-ietf-ntp-ntpv4-proto-13)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms Specification
Publication Date    : June 2010
Author(s)           : D. Mills, J. Martin, Ed., J. Burbank, W. Kasch
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Network Time Protocol
Area                : Internet
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG