[Ntp] draft-schiff-ntp-chronos-03

Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 20 November 2019 11:29 UTC

Return-Path: <ek.ietf@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 BF1FD120ACF for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 03:29:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 ox_uYfMfqayp for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 03:29:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ed1-x533.google.com (mail-ed1-x533.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::533]) (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 2C259120AC7 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 03:29:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ed1-x533.google.com with SMTP id m13so19974819edv.9 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 03:29:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=EIp2Fw8IGYOBNOQtBAVp3Hxi3ufG1viEYa62XjQ57SM=; b=Quz8Tq1q134HBGJGOkeu/Qw/H4GSNPx94In9tGwXWiiDz9h/Z5iMoCxJX9vypTIHDD o9jq1J5NSlyWU8qrNiy20jT8XR8fgosxjdRXQXQ0L0+ZWsXlFUara4Dis9+zJCs2Hvl5 nsgpHQWqD4QxSY2CN22L+dISuX+lqNgxBbYBObX0Erp5t8rFtzER8E5OrMkcm2epoDix lnPqFtpX/t121GdmGO6vgFHx0JF6QcpFkMhkIUtZPGAbD5xlh02EPQT6PoHXdrqRb3SL 2ZYhdHPECS6J+9vji4i7rP3gmEmXrsxPnlGf1t+vNW8Z/169w9h3k5EfBCmMph1XYVqh tx7Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=EIp2Fw8IGYOBNOQtBAVp3Hxi3ufG1viEYa62XjQ57SM=; b=D4tIqZeQZNFo4hiQYbkN53HGGmdYA6cB+D9VU4lDCftud1ABMuEura4bSCnmHIE+RB EHMIDhQuMzs/8A/l0AqeOkDuwOcZd4fxad33Kg11eqHulwA+VlRfrj1gDhBkpXugDycG ly7aFY1GQj3Cp/pM5t4S2D5m317vc8Efoq83EhsGpILK95sAL4gjB120h9OUGfX62JHt WxgUA1L2Pdy9lG2Mnd0DMFHS9FY/ybqxVo26hZoXdxhC6KAA7zcYM6OctcGWywqQi2yT tr/7vK/gKnSBZ7qIZmInIXaXChah45rI27pU0c0CgwOpOlyJ8MsdUaTGD/DVUs2+cW4Z 0QvQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW4JU8AHAUuD/qsTJjbF83MhYHi5V7vFX1gYjBDAAubvd7kzZoj Jmvw/yjomn+yhSf0LhGT0/19IyLNYbESNxDTNkGvt6f3u0g=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxGfLaPez/bGXojyY7YgNz/DZ7/CNCc8vF0Y2BazOfBEpWV6lxQAh0UrzIYHiDSvA/5lKPmCt3xb7V1uaM9OQk=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:1ed7:: with SMTP id m23mr4716995ejj.326.1574249344573; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 03:29:04 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 19:28:53 +0800
Message-ID: <CAMGpriU+sEFvFtH9z9Vn2kjkH-Q-JV56HfdVsek-5mS96-r43Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: ntp@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f8a42f0597c57c31"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/x2XqX73QVo62YGScQOfiiBI1Bk4>
Subject: [Ntp] draft-schiff-ntp-chronos-03
X-BeenThere: ntp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 11:29:08 -0000

Just a note to say that, FWIW, I have read draft -03.  I found it
relatively straightforward and comprehensible.

For me, the link to the paper didn't work, though that might have been an
artifact of the IETF network at the time I was trying.  Nevertheless, I was
able to find the paper with some light searching, though I haven't had the
chance to read it.

If the paper provides, or the authors know of, any operational guidance on
a value for w in "common practice", that might be useful to include
somewhere in the document (apologies if I've missed it).

-ek