[ntp:hackers] Standardizing NTP...
todd.glassey at worldnet.att.net
Tue Jun 14 15:20:28 PDT 2005
Thanks Brian - What we need to do is to
1) Define what formally is in a NTP release and how its to be tested.
I.e. how does a NTP port work. This is killer and important for all SW based
NTP service providers and for those like Symmetricom who build the 2100 NTP
Engine's as well.
2) Define what compilation environment it is to be compiled in and
what optional modules or additions are acceptable
3) Code fingerprints for executables/certified performance
4) A process of characterization - i.e. how will the performance of
NTP in a loaded environment be tested and what will that loading consist of
5) Practice/Use Statements - these are the freakin gold - this is
where from an Audit Perspective it all comes together. The Practice/Use
statements integrate the deliverable workproduct from steps 1-4 into a set
of "you do it like this" statements... like what Terje was talking about
yesterday in his "hey Todd we can do it this way" retort.
6) Certifications from the Big-4 for the pre-approved use of our
code... (*this may be the most valuable part of this whole play).
My comment to the group as a whole!
As to what this group is doing - most all of this group are freaking amazing
people - you are technical wizards in your own right and that is why I would
bring this to you, because I honor your creativity and skill,. What "this
is" is the opportunity to drive the standardization of NTP before the Big-4
do as part of an Audit Practice.
Just my two cents...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Utterback" <Brian.Utterback at Sun.COM>
To: <todd.glassey at att.net>
Cc: "Paul Vixie" <paul at vix.com>; <hackers at ntp.isc.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: [ntp:hackers] Standardizing NTP...
> "Tyson:Am I invisible? Am I inaudible? Do I merely festoon
> The room with my presence?" - The Lady's Not for Burning by Christopher
> Please, let's get this back to a technical level, shall we? Todd,
> instead of telling us
> what we are doing wrong, give us the requirements for your project.
> Everybody else,
> once Todd does that, let's discuss if we can incorporate it into the
> current framework,
> and whether or not we want to.
> We have three choices as far as I can tell, depending on what we decide.
> 1. Todd's agenda is a natural extension of the current project and we
> it directly into the existing framework. Todd and/or anyone else
> contributes as
> we have done up to now. Or Todd simply contributes any work he does.
> 2. Auditable time becomes a NTP project sub-project. The same framework
> for development is used, but the codebase is separate.
> 3. We reject the project and Todd either starts a new project of his own
> forks the code.
> Can we discuss this please instead of worrying about who owns what and
> for this and that? Once the bigger issue of whether or not it even makes
> is decided, the rest can be ironed out.
> todd.glassey at att.net wrote:
> >So prove me wrong Vixie... show me the paperwork.
> >Todd Glassey
> >This message (including any
> >attachments) contains confidential
> >information intended for a
> >specific individual and purpose,
> >and is protected by law. If you
> >are not the intended recipient,
> >you should delete this message.
> >Any disclosure, copying, or
> >distribution of this message, or
> >the taking of any action based on
> >it, is strictly prohibited.
> > -------------- Original message ----------------------
> >From: Paul Vixie <paul at vix.com>
> >>>Possibly - this group neither signed any releases or oherwise agreed
> >>>to the ISC's ownership policies as far as I can tell.
> >>that's right (as far as you can tell).
> >>>That is an issue I think Paul, but I do uunderstand the desire to make
> >>>something universally available as a human resource.
> >>more than that, it's in our corporate dna. if isc money is spent in
> >>that are creative or supportive of $X, then $X has to be open source.
> >>>Unfortunately someone winds up paying for that out of their
> >>>pockets... which is to say, that without the sponsorship of the BIND
> >>>moneys, there would be little to fund the ISC as far as I can tell.
> >>that's also right (as far as you can tell).
> >hackers mailing list
> >hackers at support.ntp.org
More information about the hackers