Richard Laager via devel <devel@ntpsec.org>: > >>> Can anyone explain to me a case in which these are not > >>> equivalent to expcit port prefixes on a server, ask, re require > >>> address? > >> > >> Because the Proposed RFC says you can ask for an ntpport without > >> asking for a ntpd address. > > > > Cite? I want to be certain there'a a MUST there before I buy the > > complexity. You have shown some tendency to overinterpret these > > things. > > 4.1.8. NTPv4 Port Negotiation > > The NTPv4 Port Negotiation record has a Record Type number of 7. Its > body consists of a 16-bit unsigned integer in network byte order, > denoting a UDP port number.
Why does this imply an option, though? What is the use case for that
record?
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
My work is funded by the Internet Civil Engineering Institute: https://icei.org
Please visit their site and donate: the civilization you save might be your own.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
