Ryan, That was 16 years ago and you know exactly what I meant. If you are going to implement a mode-6 control and monitoring protocol, then you must conform to the specification. Period. Any other interpretation is stupid.
Dave Ryan Malayter wrote: > On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 11:56 AM, David L. Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Neither does Windows implement the mode-6 protocol nor does it conform >>to the basic protocol. > > > Microsoft claims otherwise: > "The Windows Time service integrates NTP version 3 with algorithmic > enhancements from NTP version 4" > from http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc773013.aspx > There are plenty of references to RFC 1305 on those pages. > > The only strange behavior I've observed from Windows Time Service > >>2003 is the use of symmetric-active associations as a default. > > However, that is not a non-compliance problem, as client-mode > associations are easily configured explicitly. It is just a stupid > default. > > Now the lack of support for broadcast and multicast modes may be > grounds for calling the implementation, but the RFC is a bit unclear > as to whether all modes are required. The use of the standard RFC 221 > > >>As the author of rfc1305 I say you misquote me. The mode-6 control and >>monitoring protocol is an integral component of the specification; the >>mode-7 protocol is intended as propietary. In any case the mode-6 >>protocol was defined and implmented well before SNMP. > > >>From RFC 1305 Appendix B, paragraph 1: > "These messages are intended for use only in > systems where no other management facilities are available or > appropriate, such as in dedicated-function bus peripherals. Support for > these messages is not required in order to conform to this > specification." > > Now David, you may have *meant* something else, but what you wrote > into RFC 1305 seems pretty clear. The first sentence quoted above > clearly indicates that mode 6 packets are *not* the preffered method > for management and monitoring of NTP systems. Any NTP implementer - > even Microsoft - cannot be taken to task accountable for following the > recommendations of RFC 1305! > _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
