[ntp:questions] pool configuration directive on Windows

David L. Mills mills at udel.edu
Thu Mar 6 04:50:31 UTC 2008


1. The pool command has been present for, in the scheme of things, for 
some time, certainly before the latest release in September, 2007. If 
so, why are we having this discussion?

2. To what are you referring to about inverted restrict bits? I've heard 
this urban legend before from several sources. The only change some time 
ago was to the notrust bit. The interpretation was changed to deny 
access --unless-- the server was correctly authenticated to the client. 
Nothing was "inverted". You could help be spreading a new urban legend 
to this effect.

3. I have been rather studious in announcing new features and 
significatn changes to the hackers newsgroup. The archives of that group 
should form an adequate electric paper trail, but it would have to be 
correlated with the release dates.

4. There has been a serious upgrade effor for the documentation to 
improve the style, reduce the lies and correct misconceptions, but it is 
an ongoing effort. Much of that has already been incorporated in the 
development branch documentaiton, including a sitemap anc command index. 
However, I do not intend to create a back index documenting when changes 
have been introduced other that the rather vague release notes.


Martin Burnicki wrote:

> Ryan Malayter wrote:
>>On Mar 4, 10:29 am, Martin Burnicki <martin.burni... at meinberg.de>
>>>The keyword "pool" has been introduced in the development branch of NTP
>>>(ntp-dev, v4.2.5), so it is not supported in ntpd v4.2.4p4 which is the
>>>current "stable" version.
>>Ahh... it is on Dave's udel documentation page, so I figred this
>>feature was "released". While it is not practical to go back in
>>history, it might be nice to have footnotes that relate specific
>>functionailty changes to specific versions in the documentation.
>>The page I am talking about is
>>http://www.cis.udel.edu/~mills/ntp/html/manyopt.html. A footnote that says
>>"introduced in version 4.2.5" for the pool scheme would be helpful. I
>>guess you can comb the release notes, but working backwards that way is
>>much more difficult for the end user.
> I absolutely agree. 
> The online docs are often quoted here in the NG, and sometimes certain
> features which have just been added a few ntp-dev versions ago are referred
> to in a way as if they had always been in the code, though they are not
> even in the current stable release. For example see the recent discussion
> about the handling of leap seconds.
> I'd really love to see some notes in the docs in which version certain
> features have been introduced, obsoleted, or even the effect has been
> inverted (e.g. the "restrict" keyword).
> Martin

More information about the questions mailing list