Re: [Ntp] [EXT] Hard NO: Re: WGLC - draft-ietf-ntp-ntpv5-requirements

Hal Murray <> Tue, 19 December 2023 09:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E731C14EB19 for <>; Tue, 19 Dec 2023 01:08:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.106
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.106 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d3INaVWyQZSm for <>; Tue, 19 Dec 2023 01:08:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9593CC14F5F3 for <>; Tue, 19 Dec 2023 01:08:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 3BJ98eU1029825 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 19 Dec 2023 01:08:40 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=net23; t=1702976921; bh=U/Q1fa0OWlsSIvA0Ql08ntr3gIWp2KbjW5OmXHxiOfY=; h=To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Date:Message-Id:From:Subject; b=BzZ6oiWj6zu5ASMAnLZZ+sgRiGT+hKAy/UySZgRRQRrCZWzN2E3z7sMOu/tAMf5z2 NPegHhHn63l+MfaNUxs6cwMo9vSRpQONitInwNiB8D7JXkBn8Z2BFeVfII9BLeVm0A 6tK6cxBxsWiuEqTF4U2zYqojBqvl2sT3HumD+mOn36V/Gr9X822MH0q7csc3fsif6z 6wubuEf8t/xK7ru2iQ5SU3U2CSUW65cbqsEd36/q81QjbCzt4WKmHHIxtORrTucxFB ec2RB26WLZggvVFsovmX0PyJHRVtBRnEs08FdJYfNcNrMA494Gc0LBlFBeZQ7B8DJ5 Zgl6IxEBytTEg==
Received: from hgm (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13E8228C1C3; Tue, 19 Dec 2023 01:08:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.9.0 11/07/2018 with nmh-1.8
To: "Windl, Ulrich" <>
cc: "" <>, Hal Murray <>
From: Hal Murray <>
In-Reply-To: Message from "Windl, Ulrich" <> of "Tue, 19 Dec 2023 08:30:26 +0000." <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2023 01:08:39 -0800
Message-Id: <>
X-Sonic-CAuth: UmFuZG9tSVbvzRWQPWrJp9ZVuPQbgqSkXmbAfhYFHYPsLCFp9ut5jYKqj2Wt9JS2DjMFTT7afNfq4t1KAWn8JZ06jBIjq+UFQn3HcyI+BeU=
X-Sonic-ID: C;jNRNM06e7hGpchVnR+6Zsg== M;pCJgM06e7hGpchVnR+6Zsg==
X-Sonic-Spam-Details: -1.5/5.0 by cerberusd
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] [EXT] Hard NO: Re: WGLC - draft-ietf-ntp-ntpv5-requirements
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Time Protocol <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2023 09:08:46 -0000 said:
> I wonder about the "defined response to a "time impulse"":

I think the idea behind that is that PLLs in series are (much) more 
complicated than single PLLs.  If each individual PLL is stable, the chain may 
be unstable.

I'm not enough of a PLL wizard to provide a good explanation.

This becomes a problem when people notice that it takes a long time for NTP to 
settle so they dig around and find the time constand and make it converge 
faster.  What works on their system is less likely to work on a deeper stratum 
or may not even be stable on their current system -- just waiting for the 
right input signal to come along.

These are my opinions.  I hate spam.