[ntpwg] KISS codes and timestamps

[Greg Dowd]

No stratum 16 as this is a kiss code packet but the fact that the
unsynchronized bits are set pretty much covers it. 


Greg Dowd
gdowd at symmetricom dot com (antispam format)
Symmetricom, Inc. 
www.symmetricom.com
"The current implementation is non-obvious and may need to be improved."




-----Original Message-----
From: ntpwg-bounces+gdowd=symmetricom.com at lists.ntp.org
[mailto:ntpwg-bounces+gdowd=symmetricom.com at lists.ntp.org] On Behalf Of
David L. Mills
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 8:16 PM
To: NTP Working Group
Subject: Re: [ntpwg] KISS codes and timestamps

Danny,

It shouldn't have to say anything. By definition, if leap bits show
never synchronized and stratum 16, the client should assume the
timestamps are not valid. The dirty little secret in the reference
implementation is that the stamps are valid if the server is in fact
properly synchronized.

We have talked on occasion whether sufficient mischief could be achieved
if the stamps were set to zero or produced a sinusoidal variation of
fifty years over the day.

Dave

Danny Mayer wrote:

> [I managed to send this to the wrong mailing list. My apologies if you

> see this twice - PDM]
>
> I don't want to open a can of worms but should we add language to the 
> draft that says that if you receive DENY, RSTR, or RATE KISS codes you

> should not rely on the contents of the NTP Timestamps in the NTP 
> packet or should we say that the contents of the Timestamps will
always be valid?
>
> Danny
>
> _______________________________________________
> ntpwg mailing list
> ntpwg at lists.ntp.org
> https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/ntpwg


_______________________________________________
ntpwg mailing list
ntpwg at lists.ntp.org
https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/ntpwg