Subject: [Ntp] Comments about draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps

From: Tal Mizrahi <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2018 15:53:36 +0300

Hi,

Unfortunately I could not attend the NTP interim meeting, but I have read
the minutes from the discussion (
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ntp/current/msg02685.html).

A couple of comments following the discussion about
draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps:

The goals of this draft, as currently defined in the draft, are to specify
guidelines for defining new timestamp formats, and to present a set of
recommended timestamp formats. The recommended timestamps that are
currently presented in the draft are based on previously defined and
commonly used formats, from NTP and PTP.

We received some valuable feedback about earlier versions of the draft that
we should address leap seconds. One of the more recent comments from Daniel
was that the draft should include a timestamp format that is unambiguous
around leap seconds.

In this context please note:
- One of the recommended timestamp formats in the draft is the PTP
timestamp format, which unambiguously represents time during leap seconds.
- Following some of the comments we received, the current version of the
draft includes a section about leap seconds, and specifically defines the
way new timestamp format specifications should address leap second
considerations.
- The recommended timestamp formats in this draft are intended to be
timestamp formats that have already been defined, and are likely to be
commonly used.

I do agree that it may be worthwhile to define a new experimental timestamp
format that includes leap second / leap smear information - this new
experimental format belongs in a new experimental draft, and I would be
happy to talk to people who are willing to contribute text to this new
potential draft.

As for the current draft, based on its goals I believe we have
satisfactorily addressed the leap second issue in this draft.

Cheers,
Tal.