Yo Bob! On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 15:42:58 -0500 Bob Camp <[email protected]> wrote:
> I believe the point was: If you start tossing around packets that are
> odd sized, it is likely to break a lot of existing code.
Not 'odd'. Fully specified in the RFC. Anyone that did not implement
the spec gets what they deserve.
IMHO, better for a packet that can be misinterpreted be dropped, Like
the new non-standard Google NTP. Unmarked these new packets can cause
havoc.
But, to be fair, some assert the spec is a bit ambiguous. So any
extention should be a new RFC. Like Autokey.
RGDS
GARY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97703
[email protected] Tel:+1 541 382 8588
pgpMImyMn51mm.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
