Gary E. Miller <g...@rellim.com>: > > I'd prefer to bias towards architectural simplicity unless and until > > field reports force us to optimize for the high-load case. > > If NTPsec is to seriously challenge NTP Classic, it must outperform > NTPsec at the bleeding edge. In the NTP case that is high load > factor and high performance.
Me, I would have thought that since we chose to brand ourselves
"NTPsec", security is the relevant dimension of performance, and not
having more holes than a shotgunned colander would be sufficient to
get past Classic.
We can actually point to one other dimension of better performance right
now. We step at a theoretical 10e3 higher accuracy - less than that in
practice but only because nothing shy of a cesium-fountain clock can
slice time that fine.
Given these, I'm really curious why you choose high-load performance as a
hill to die on.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
