[ntp:questions] Windows built-in SNTP/NTP clients
David L. Mills
mills at udel.edu
Thu Aug 14 17:17:35 UTC 2008
That was 16 years ago and you know exactly what I meant. If you are
going to implement a mode-6 control and monitoring protocol, then you
must conform to the specification. Period. Any other interpretation is
Ryan Malayter wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 11:56 AM, David L. Mills <mills at udel.edu> wrote:
>>Neither does Windows implement the mode-6 protocol nor does it conform
>>to the basic protocol.
> Microsoft claims otherwise:
> "The Windows Time service integrates NTP version 3 with algorithmic
> enhancements from NTP version 4"
> from http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc773013.aspx
> There are plenty of references to RFC 1305 on those pages.
> The only strange behavior I've observed from Windows Time Service
>>2003 is the use of symmetric-active associations as a default.
> However, that is not a non-compliance problem, as client-mode
> associations are easily configured explicitly. It is just a stupid
> Now the lack of support for broadcast and multicast modes may be
> grounds for calling the implementation, but the RFC is a bit unclear
> as to whether all modes are required. The use of the standard RFC 221
>>As the author of rfc1305 I say you misquote me. The mode-6 control and
>>monitoring protocol is an integral component of the specification; the
>>mode-7 protocol is intended as propietary. In any case the mode-6
>>protocol was defined and implmented well before SNMP.
>>From RFC 1305 Appendix B, paragraph 1:
> "These messages are intended for use only in
> systems where no other management facilities are available or
> appropriate, such as in dedicated-function bus peripherals. Support for
> these messages is not required in order to conform to this
> Now David, you may have *meant* something else, but what you wrote
> into RFC 1305 seems pretty clear. The first sentence quoted above
> clearly indicates that mode 6 packets are *not* the preffered method
> for management and monitoring of NTP systems. Any NTP implementer -
> even Microsoft - cannot be taken to task accountable for following the
> recommendations of RFC 1305!
More information about the questions