[ntpwg] Re: [ntp:hackers] Re: peer flash bits

[mayer at gis.net]

Dave,

I'd like to get beyond this. I'm not convinced that the flash bits are
important
since they are only visible externally from the server if you
specifically ask
for them for that specific association. In any case it has more to do
with
internal state than a protocol issue.

I'd love to start looking at the spec, but we, at least I, need pointers
to the specific documentation. Can you provide a set of pointers of docs
that need review and need to be forwarded into the IETF WG as work
items?
I haven't looked at the test plan and I think you only sent it to a few
people and not the mailing lists.

Danny
----- Original Message Follows -----
> Harlan,
> 
> The ntpd doesn't return anything except raw status bits and raw 
> vegetables. It does no interpret the bits or provide flash tool tips. 
> That's the function of ntpq in whatever form. See the control and 
> monitoring protocol in the appendix to rfc1305. That extends to the 
> traps, status bits and other data defined in that appendix. The NTPv4 
> spec is unchanged from the NTPv3 spec in that area, at least for the 
> present. The present might morph with no apology.
> 
> Can we go beyond the flasher issue, which is not a specification
> issue?  Can we get on with the spec itself? Has anybody looked at the 
> flowcharts? Are there comments on the weekly reports I have made to
> the  hackers group? Has anybody comment on the test suite draft? Has
> anybody  comment on the algorithms, protocol and architecture? Is
> there any  progress on the Autokey specification?
> 
> Dave