[ntp:questions] What can be uses as an SNTP server (was: How to handle leap second condition correctly?)
David L. Mills
mills at udel.edu
Mon Jun 13 13:00:52 UTC 2005
rfc2030 was written before the language police facists came to town. I'm
not going to worry about it and somebody else will have to insert the
SHOULD/MUST nonsense. What you see in the informational document is what
you get. The decision to publish this way was by advice from the IETF
warlords, as the two year delay in publishing informational documents
would likely stretch to forever if on standards track.
It is my intent that the NTPv4 spec should completely and utterly
obsolere rfc1305. Any other course would be confusing, misleading and
shameful. After all, rfc1305 has been in draft standard status for
> ----- Original Message Follows -----
>>In article <ywn9d5qs9vil.fsf at ntp1.isc.org>,
>>Harlan Stenn <stenn at ntp.isc.org> wrote:
>>>I just re-read the draft 2030 spec and it says that the legal values
>>RFC 2030 is released. It can't be a draft. Any replacement will have
>>a new RFC number. It will either obsolete RFC 2030 or define a new
>>version of the protocol. (For example, the NTP v4 RFC, when it
>>arrives, will not obsolete RFC 1305.)
> It's worse than you think. It's marked as Informational. It's not
> even a Draft. These are IETF technical terms in designating RFC's.
> The NTP v4 RFC SHOULD obsolete RFC 1305. It NEEDS to be replaced.
>>>Also, the draft SNTP RFC says:
>>Except for KOD, this is the same as RFC 2030.
>>> 2-15 secondary reference (synchronized by NTP or SNTP)
>>Although RFC 2030 doesn't use the proper SHOULD NOT style language, it
>>is clear to me that the only reasonable interpretation of the
>>following is SHOULD NOT, so the above is valid; an RFC 2030 server MAY
>>operate at stratum's higher than one and MAY exist.
> Well it's only informational so it can't enforce anything.
More information about the questions