[Ntp] NTPv5 -- drop leaps
Hal Murray <halmurray@sonic.net> Tue, 18 July 2023 02:52 UTC
Return-Path: <halmurray@sonic.net>
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 8DFC7C151079 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Jul 2023 19:52:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pt0mXCWpFoCH for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Jul 2023 19:52:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from c.mail.sonic.net (c.mail.sonic.net [64.142.111.80]) (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 382A9C151067 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Jul 2023 19:52:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 107-137-68-211.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net (104-182-38-69.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [104.182.38.69]) (authenticated bits=0) by c.mail.sonic.net (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 36I2qBLh025866 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 17 Jul 2023 19:52:11 -0700
Received: from hgm (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by 107-137-68-211.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63F3B28C20C; Mon, 17 Jul 2023 19:52:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.9.0 11/07/2018 with nmh-1.8
To: ntp@ietf.org
cc: Hal Murray <halmurray@sonic.net>
From: Hal Murray <halmurray@sonic.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2023 19:52:11 -0700
Message-Id: <20230718025211.63F3B28C20C@107-137-68-211.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net>
X-Sonic-CAuth: UmFuZG9tSVZcGnR8rE3WDG0grA5pyagzF1zCVxJFvzOlgvtgYH4xQB2ehWE/U4oRr4ydcfgzSZuat1VwGwAY9QJqaGltW1cXDUkAAACXBuA=
X-Sonic-ID: C;0h/kFxYl7hGamhdnR+6Zsg== M;yqv2FxYl7hGamhdnR+6Zsg==
X-Sonic-Spam-Details: -1.5/5.0 by cerberusd
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/whxR6w_Tke_EOFh4A5QuS2Rk7bw>
Subject: [Ntp] NTPv5 -- drop leaps
X-BeenThere: ntp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 18 Jul 2023 02:52:17 -0000
Leap seconds are on the way out. I think we should drop all mention of leaping or smearing from NTPv5. The idea is to simplify RFCs, making it easier for us to create documents that are easy to understand and more likely that implementors will find what they need. It will also save time and clutter on this mailing list. There is a good chance there won't be any more leap seconds. If there are, we can muddle through, just like we would do if we didn't have NTPv5. If we aren't cleaning up leaping and smearing, do we need a new version? We will have to support NTPv3 and NTPv4 for a long long time. (And NTPv1/0) What do we need to fix that will be worth the effort of switching to a new version and running 2 versions in parallel? ---------- Assuming we decide that we should work on a new version... I think we should split NTP RFCs into smaller documents. I'd like to see a clean/simple document for basic server-server traffic. Just time. If we were going to keep leaping, TAI would be the obvious choice. Without leaps, UTC will work fine and we don't need anything about what time scale is being used. What is needed in a basic NTP packet? We need an RFC describing an extension for shared keys. I think an extension for UT1 or DUT1 would keep the astronomers happy. Would any of them use it? Multicast and symmetric may be appropriate for their own modes rather than using extensions. I think we should leave room in the mode assignments for them and others. Does Multicast need a separate mode? I expect it would have a multicast dest address. Would anything else be sent to that address? Are there any fields that we might want to add to the basic packet that seem more appropriate for the packet rather than an extension? What about interleaving? Maybe we should have a slot with room for various flags, like interleaving and symmetric mode. -------- I think we need a BCP for SNTP -- specfically targeted at code that will go into ROM and won't get updated. That means we have to figure out what we will support in the long term. -------- I think we should make it clear that software that looks at packets should check the version field first, then the mode field. That gives us the opportunity to move the mode field and/or make it bigger. -------- The leap-seconds file is now included with the time-zone data. (They have promised to push out a release with new leap info even if there are no changes in the time zone data.) This is now included with Debian and Fedora. /usr/share/zoneinfo/leap-seconds.list It would be easy to setup a utility to tell the kernel the TAI offset and any pending leap info without help from NTP. -- These are my opinions. I hate spam.
- [Ntp] NTPv5 -- drop leaps Hal Murray
- Re: [Ntp] [EXT] NTPv5 -- drop leaps Windl, Ulrich
- Re: [Ntp] [EXT] NTPv5 -- drop leaps Steven Sommars
- Re: [Ntp] [EXT] NTPv5 -- drop leaps Warner Losh
- Re: [Ntp] [EXT] NTPv5 -- drop leaps Hal Murray
- Re: [Ntp] [EXT] NTPv5 -- drop leaps Martin Burnicki
- Re: [Ntp] [EXT] NTPv5 -- drop leaps Martin Burnicki