On 2012-08-04, David Woolley <[email protected]> wrote: > Harlan Stenn wrote: >>> Oh, my mistake: I quote RFC5905 below, which is for NTPv4, which is >>> technically in _draft_ status - though it does seem pretty far along and >>> I believe current ntpd adheres to NTPv4, not v3. >> >> The NTP code *defines* the spec, and there will be times when the > > I think you mean the "ntpd reference implementation", e.g. Microsoft's > NTP code does not define the standard.
And it is a reference implimentation, not the definition. Ie, it is an implimentation that is supposed to follow the standard. It does not define the standard. > > Also, I don't think this is the correct relationship between RFCs and > reference implementations. An RFC specifies the protocol for a specific I think that the reference implimentation impliments a specific rfc. Ie, the rfc comes first. > reference implementation. If you do more than fix bugs in the reference > implementation, you need a new RFC before it becomes the standard. An rfc is just a request for comments. It is NOT a standard. It may become one ( although I think none of the ntp rfcs have actually ever become standards). > > _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
