IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ntp] Smearing

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Tue, 19 October 2021 16:54 UTC

Return-Path: <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
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 D42DC3A0DED for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 09:54:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 mcljI6GwiNOg for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 09:53:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppsw-30.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-30.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1CDEB3A0DEE for <ntp@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Oct 2021 09:53:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: https://help.uis.cam.ac.uk/email-scanner-virus
Received: from [87.74.217.245] (port=58752 helo=milebook.lan) by ppsw-30.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.156]:25) with esmtpsa (PLAIN:fanf2) (TLS1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) id 1mcsN8-000seT-ex (Exim 4.95) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Tue, 19 Oct 2021 17:53:54 +0100
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2021 17:53:54 +0100
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
To: Danny Mayer <mayer@pdmconsulting.net>
cc: NTP WG <ntp@ietf.org>, Hal Murray <halmurray+ietf@sonic.net>
In-Reply-To: <0d94bb6d-237d-5a8f-52af-b96f2355c6b3@pdmconsulting.net>
Message-ID: <9e8a42d2-28e8-9334-cfe-ae654c4e2bf3@dotat.at>
References: <20211015210250.6330328C0F3@107-137-68-211.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net> <2ee63d83-cde0-4665-52e1-5fa0d18325e@dotat.at> <4cfe73c5-baee-db8e-549f-2088067dcaf6@pdmconsulting.net> <fde5025-40d3-523c-a3c8-65605944cd0@dotat.at> <0d94bb6d-237d-5a8f-52af-b96f2355c6b3@pdmconsulting.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: Tony Finch <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/qdjX1pVrGFlFjjC00YoCKeEHX40>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] Smearing
X-BeenThere: ntp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Time Protocol <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: Tue, 19 Oct 2021 16:54:03 -0000

Danny Mayer <mayer@pdmconsulting.net> wrote:
>
> You've just outlined the ones we know about. A client may want to follow one
> or the other or none. That's a policy decision so let the client make it.
> That's why embedding a smearing ID in the packet makes sense.

Yes, I understand that :-) but I think that having more than one kind of
smearing is a bad idea (even one kind of smearing is arguably too many...)
so maybe it would be slightly better to standardize only the consensus
least bad version of leap smear.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  https://dotat.at/
Fitzroy, Sole: Southwesterly 4 to 6, veering westerly or northwesterly
6 to gale 8, occasionally severe gale 9 later except in south Fitzroy.
Moderate or rough becoming rough or very rough, then high later in
north Fitzroy. Rain or thundery showers. Moderate or good,
occasionally poor.

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status