On 3/19/14 9:50 AM, Chris Albertson wrote:
So they want to in-invent NTP?
I think NTP already services way more than 6.5 billion per day. The
problem with NTP is while it is nearly optimal and provides the best
time accuracy for a given hardware/network setup it is not technically
"traceable" even if the time really is from NIST indirectly.
They are well aware of NTP.. they serve 6.5 billion a day *from NIST*
and that's what they are looking at potentially outsourcing or changing.
And, of course, there's the "legally traceable" aspect.
I think you could fix this traceability problem with some rules about
how to write the configuration files, no new software. For example
NTP already handles cryptographic authentication. Make the use of
this monitory so that then you know you are talking to a NIST
referenced server.
That's very possible, and you could respond to the RFI and tell them so.
Could you set up a legally traceable set of multiple tiers?
What would the mechanics of this be?
That's really what the RFI is all about.. "tell us what you think we
need to know"..
They'll get responses that are overlapping existing knowledge, for sure.
And nobody is going to respond with something that is confidential or
proprietary or telegraphs a future product line, because all the RFI
responses are essentially public info.
_______________________________________________
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
