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

[Danny Mayer <[e-mail]>]

On 4/17/20 10:41 AM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 03:48:56AM -0700, Harlan Stenn wrote:
>> 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.
> Maybe it's useful to have performance guarantees specified, but
> leave the algorithm how to get there either to the
> implementations, or in a separate document.

This makes no sense. You can't get performance out of a clock. The
things you have to rely on is the reliability of the clocks your NTP
server are referencing, it's stability, error estimates, jitter,
accuracy, and closeness to UTC (if that can be measured). You need to
remember that NTP is a set of loosely coupled networked clocks
interacting with each other. They cannot be easily separated as if you
are running a computer game.

Danny