[ntpwg] REQUEST FOR TEXT - Protocol Doc Changes

[TS Glassey]

Why not use the XDR model for representing the 'natural' data as it were.

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stewart Bryant" <stbryant at cisco.com>
To: <rich.osman at nsn.com>
Cc: <ntpwg at lists.ntp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 5:44 AM
Subject: Re: [ntpwg] REQUEST FOR TEXT - Protocol Doc Changes


> 
> My first thought was that the timing reference point
> should be the first bit of the NTP payload, since
> this was within the NTP scope and everything before it
> was a variable length.
> 
> However on reflection after reading the thread I think
> that the only point in the packet that you can rely
> on is start of frame, and this is by far the
> easiest point in the frame for the receive hardware
> to capture and locally timestamp.
> 
> The variable number of bits in the datalink header
> and the IP header (IPv4/v6) in principle be
> corrected because
> 
> a) Both transmitter and receive know (at least in
> principle) how many there are and can apply corrections
> 
> b) If you go through some switching equipment that
> changes any of these factors, then in general
> the errors introduced by the switching will
> be significant compared to this error, although
> in principle the switches could correct the timestamp
> accordingly as part of some sort of one step
> transparent clock.
> 
> - Stewart
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ntpwg mailing list
> ntpwg at lists.ntp.org
> https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/ntpwg