[ntp:hackers] unprivileged ntpd prototype
tglassey
tglassey at glassey.com
Tue Nov 3 18:49:00 UTC 2009
Brian Utterback wrote:
> Dave Hart wrote:
>
>
>> I fail to see the problem with violating the RFC with a non-default
>> option.
There isnt one. The IETF's license means that the specification doesn't
have to be followed and there is no impact in the use license for
implementing bad code. The IETF cannot even say that the derivative
products were not licensed under the RFC xyz licensing as published and
that based therein all aspects of the requirements for the use of the
licensed code have been met.
I brought this up a number of times already...
Todd
>> I don't even see the utility in warning that it's a RFC
>> violation in the usage text. No matter how many times you state it
>> has been discussed and rejected previously, I will be unmoved. I was
>> not part of those discussions. If there is a _reason_ the project
>> should reject either the alternate port or the synthetic clock, let's
>> hear it.
>>
>
> Alas, I wasn't one of those objecting and I don't recall the
> reasoning. I keep hoping that someone who does object would chime in
> here...
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.424 / Virus Database: 270.14.46/2477 - Release Date: 11/02/09 19:39:00
>
>
More information about the hackers
mailing list