Re: [Ntp] Antw: [EXT] Re: Timescales

[Magnus Danielson <[e-mail]>]

Miroslav,

On 2020-12-09 16:21, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 04:11:32PM +0100, Magnus Danielson wrote:
>> In my mind, the train to discuss the need for leap-second information
>> has already gone. Too many applications start to need it for them to
>> function well, and if NTPv5 is not able to deliver that, then it should
>> either be redesigned to just dropped as an effort and focus on a
>> revision of NTP that does support it, because what is needed is a
>> solution that supports this. In the meanwhile, PTP has the needed
>> support and we could just drop NTP and go all PTP then. Personally I
>> think there is great value in NTP for many applications, if only it can
>> handle this properly along getting secure with NTS.
> I don't understand everything you said, but I think we are in
> agreement. My draft supports both UTC and TAI. It also provides the
> TAI-UTC offset when known.
>
> That's similar to PTP. It can work in TAI or the "arbitrary"
> timescale, typically UTC. There is a field for the TAI-UTC offset and
> there is a flag to indicate it is valid.

I will make sure to check the details of the latest draft, I've not had
the time to quality check everything with that in mind, my comments have
mainly been reactions to other peoples posting on the list. Feel free to
bang my head if you don't get any feedback from me within the week.

There is one particular notion that I want to make sure is captured, in
that the TAI-UTC leap second difference should be available such that
unambigous interpretation into TAI, UTC, UNIX/POSIX, LINUX time-scales
can be provided as the norm.

Cheers,
Magnus