Re: [Ntp] Leap second draft

[Kurt Roeckx <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 08:57:42PM +0100, Daniel Franke wrote:
>    When a deleted leap second or any portion of an inserted leap second
>    intervenes between when the Receive Timestamp is captured and when
>    the Transmit Timestamp is captured, the result is likely to be
>    misinterpreted by any receiver which does not implement the Leap Data
>    and Era Number extension field.

I'm not really sure what you mean here exactly. But I think that
for an insert, either the receive or transmit happening during
the leap second can cause problems if this extension is not used.

As far as I understand, during a remove the bits would not be set,
because it's clear what the time of the fields is. In theory we
could assume that client should know about the leap second
happening, and so it should perfectly understand both timestamps
without this extension. But I guess in practice we can't assume
this, and I think not sending a reply does make sense.

I would recommend adding examples for all possible cases.


Kurt