[ntp:questions] Re: a new NTP implementation (dntp)

Christopher Browne cbbrowne at acm.org
Mon Apr 25 12:45:57 UTC 2005


Oops! "David L. Mills" <mills at udel.edu> was seen spray-painting on a wall:
> David,
>
> Thanks for the spy. I took a look at the pages you mention. There's a
> couple of points that should be made and they have nothing to do with
> the excellence of lack of it with either their implementation our
> "ours".
>
> 1. I don't know why they even consider xntpd. That hasn't been the
> standard of comparison for at least eight years.
>
> 2. The IETF folks and especially me would very much welcome new kids
> on the block, but only if they conform to spec, whatever that means
> now. They can claim RFC-1305 and/or RFC-2030 or, best yet, they can
> participate in the current IETF task force on NTPv4
> specification. They would then get the chance to argue changes and
> improvements, as was said about the frequency problem.

Is any change likely on the NTPv4 standards?

That it isn't yet a draft means that the implementation also has no
formal standing, which is probably why we can't get IBM Global
Services to accept anything newer than xntp for use.  xntp is an
implementation of something that _was_ accepted as a standard, whereas
the same isn't true for NTPv4.

NTPv4 may be way better, but there are places where I can't get it
deployed because there's no standard!
-- 
"cbbrowne","@","acm.org"
http://linuxdatabases.info/info/postgresql.html
"Life without music would be a mistake."  -- Nietzsche



More information about the questions mailing list