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. Brian Utterback _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
