Frank <fr...@nicholasfamilycentral.com>:
> I agree 100% - I’d like to see clock type 20 stay in NTPSec.
> K.I.S.S when a non-moving or low power or SoC system needs accurate
> time and has no desire to care about location or motion.
I'm familiar with all these arguments. But sometimes the right
short-term solution is opposite to the best thing in the long term.
For security and architecture reasons, I want to eventually get ntpd
*entirely* out of the hardware-management business. Ideally it should be a
pure protocol machine that gets its refclock reports though the SHM interface
and nowhere else.
The hardware management we keep should go into a separate refclockd that
communicates with ntpd via SHM. It's not clear why refclock 20 should
survive thaat transition when gpsd is already better at adapting to
weird sentence inventories than it is.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@ntpsec.org
http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
