Hal Murray <hmur...@megapathdsl.net>:
> [pool limit of 100 ms]
>
> e...@thyrsus.com said:
> > That's weird. Why would they have a precision requirement *above* RFC5905's
> > "A few tens of milliseconds"? You'd think they'd want it to be below that.
>
> I think the goal of the pool project has always been good-enough rather than
> great accuracy. 100 seems like a reasonable cutoff point to me. What did
> you have in mind?
I didn't have any particular accuracy goal in mind. It just seemed odd to pick
a threshold that would make pool sources unlikelly to vonistently meet the
RFC 5905 target.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@ntpsec.org
http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
