Brian Utterback wrote: > Danny, I agree with everything you said except: > > Danny Mayer wrote: >> I agree. I don't see how it can be a specification violation. The >> biggest factor is how well it keeps time. A caesium clock keeps good >> time but you wouldn't say that it violates the specification. >> > > When we first started looking at the V4 spec for the ntp-wg, my first > thought was the same as yours, namely that what happens inside a system > shouldn't matter, the algorithms don't matter, only what it chimes > matters. And strictly speaking, this is true. However, after reading > Dave's book (Das Buch as he calls it), I realized that an important > factor to the stability of the NTP network is the actual speed at > which the clocks slew, i.e. the 500 PPM limit. This is largely > ignored in the spec. I sent in some comments about how I thought it > should be addressed but alas, my changes didn't make it in the latest > versions. >
I'm not sure what it was you were trying to modify, the NTP v4 draft, the book, something else. I never said that you can consider ntpd in isolation. It's part of a network of ntpd servers and each is interacting with others. That's a very important part of the specification and each is affected by the others. Danny > Brian Utterback > > _______________________________________________ > questions mailing list > questions@lists.ntp.org > https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions > _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions