[ntp:questions] WARNING: someone's faking a leap second tonight

unruh unruh at invalid.ca
Sat Aug 4 16:28:15 UTC 2012

On 2012-08-04, David Woolley <david at ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> 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).


More information about the questions mailing list