Re: [Ntp] Antw: Re: Antw: [EXT] Re: Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft‑ietf‑ntp‑interleaved‑modes‑05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Ulrich Windl <[e-mail]>]

>>> Miroslav Lichvar <[e-mail]> schrieb am 22.07.2021 um 12:37 in
Nachricht <YPlKdn+lfKkVgzKz@localhost>:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 11:19:26AM +0200, Ulrich Windl wrote:
>> >>> Miroslav Lichvar <[e-mail]> schrieb am 22.07.2021 um 10:51
in
>> > My opinion still is that clients that set their origin timestamp to
>> > anything else than zero or the transmit timestamp from the received
>> > packet don't follow the NTP specification. It's not a subset of the
>> > protocol.
>> 
>> Your opinion is different from the RFC 5905:
>> "Origin Timestamp (org): Time at the client when the request departed
>> for the server, in NTP timestamp format." (page 23)
> 
> If you were implementing a client and read that description out of the
> context, what exactly would you put in the field? The client's
> transmit timestamp?

Yes.

> 
> When you read the text that follows that description:
> 
>    Receive Timestamp (rec): Time at the server when the request arrived
>    from the client, in NTP timestamp format.
> 
>    Transmit Timestamp (xmt): Time at the server when the response left
>    for the client, in NTP timestamp format.
> 
> what would you put in the transmit timestamp field?

Transmit time (current time), too.

> 
> That is obviously a description from the server's point of view.
> 
> To see how the timestamps are set in the client request, you need to
> look at the diagram in the "On wire protocol" section, or Figure 30 in
> the "Poll Process Operations" section, which has "x.org <‑‑ p.xmt".

I thought the first is a request, while the second is a response.


> 
> The document is quite confusing in some parts, but I don't see
> anything that could lead you to set the origin timestamp in the
> request to the server's receive timestamp (i.e. make a request in the
> interleaved mode).


Me neither.

> 
> ‑‑ 
> Miroslav Lichvar