Re: [Ntp] Minutes from the NTP/TICTOC WG session at IETF 103
Daniel Franke <dfoxfranke@gmail.com> Mon, 06 August 2018 17:29 UTC
Return-Path: <dfoxfranke@gmail.com>
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 4BC91130E44 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Aug 2018 10:29:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 y1Saiz1V4uie for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Aug 2018 10:29:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x241.google.com (mail-qk0-x241.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::241]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1270130DF0 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Aug 2018 10:29:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x241.google.com with SMTP id t79-v6so9486586qke.4 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Mon, 06 Aug 2018 10:29:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=/f1MASzH2KYW4Ub/H1awrf6AS3IyEfGmSNYGPDS6ywU=; b=EUzKT88st4OOHMDTRjgMdodv7Gs+i+PmqOJ5WSluZYbgCAe1RWk6A9iNgbUyksS7jN WszJ3b2zmC0WXYUOQU+OeIvAE7JCAqoqwKqM8UM/RSvczAS4DzNE55Ockj3ZV/3iAElt BGJWc4ehoDro9NTDq1IuA0tJA7JPGFb2STJVJ9qRvameGEQcysncycx4qrd4wCEWVclC Y9UOu+LPo8kvt2dhsViM85bZrubFCuuhjawrn6vkc2mbppN2bw8J3i7Jrvf3SWuvFQ8L lViyqghs96D8gGjjrcpAClbLL2VJR1ott1dR0VcHVy/hqQKVr/kzF+C1cpkQH8Bh2FSf 7EZg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=/f1MASzH2KYW4Ub/H1awrf6AS3IyEfGmSNYGPDS6ywU=; b=ficki80b4o/9GgMZ1AK9vSwWG+zK/WW+dOST+mg0sHecYBCNmS2DMdcpnNsQ+6hrhN TxuxXnWM2ACQ5U7brhXy+YWHw6xWEx7vsiskC0FoijWrkn84wy+g77AU0EFGqfO+bPxR QV4nNEPJkl54zgm8Cy190UbpJyEPnW75BnZP6rJDAhRwgPRul167kKWmOBGWkplGPOQv Ok/mgaNCDx6lc5jx1ZWayxHPk31ekePvdWttwWUNjtUzrgUMItIRgqUvwQDbXX08dEOx mIfXW+jJJQYZhic3UeVE469s8Mr1kM9fkUhY1Nsn6kI8uoOu9vhtCZgMHObp6VrtMQ1d OqOw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlGqGDSxH5QAs21RO8Yf+0mHO5JdxlmCbg8S0KqhxnK0+eLEa/MP klHC0Rq6Wt79uW26+CkHB9N5uegD/FQdkUOdqJ8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpe4v817S9HJkJOaVKa5IV46w00rFJuj8NCB5Y/OdySrYDgLjHmN6jV4U30rXkAvQtxrSX3BXiWv07hAZ50j8vI=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:660f:: with SMTP id a15-v6mr13749671qkc.423.1533576560798; Mon, 06 Aug 2018 10:29:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <OF0CF374CD.BE855701-ONC12582E1.005F6571-C12582E1.005F6578@ptb.de>
In-Reply-To: <OF0CF374CD.BE855701-ONC12582E1.005F6571-C12582E1.005F6578@ptb.de>
From: Daniel Franke <dfoxfranke@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2018 13:29:09 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJm83bByy-dU0U52nRKh3sq1GYmuQ2G7LoVn0-m5nggFCuFWbQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "dieter.sibold" <dieter.sibold@ptb.de>
Cc: ntp@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/iPY-oblaWM-sa4h-zKnJWusSwE0>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] Minutes from the NTP/TICTOC WG session at IETF 103
X-BeenThere: ntp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Mon, 06 Aug 2018 17:29:23 -0000
On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 1:23 PM <dieter.sibold@ptb.de> wrote: > - Daniel Franke: the draft should include a recommended timestamp format that is not > affected by leap seconds. The draft does not address leap seconds. Slight correction: I called for a format that can unambiguously represent the time during leap seconds, not for one "unaffected" by them. An example would be a timestamp consisting of a pair of values, the first one representing the number of whole days since some epoch, and the second representing the number of seconds elapsed since the beginning of the current day. So during a leap second, the second value is between 86400 and 86401.
- [Ntp] Minutes from the NTP/TICTOC WG session at I… dieter.sibold
- Re: [Ntp] Minutes from the NTP/TICTOC WG session … Daniel Franke
- [Ntp] Antwort: Re: Minutes from the NTP/TICTOC WG… dieter.sibold