[ntp:questions] w32time

Richard B. Gilbert rgilbert88 at comcast.net
Fri Jun 18 18:42:11 UTC 2010

David J Taylor wrote:
> "Ryan Malayter" <malayter at gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:AANLkTimOvweJjo8TwxA2XWgep4dhEbGAlGQv1vnHiQe7 at mail.gmail.com...
> []
>> The fact that niether the reference implementation nor w32time have
>> direct support for SNMP, a *far* more widely used and documented
>> managment standard, would seem to be another way to look at "who has a
>> problem." Windows Group Policy and WMI comprise a far more widley
>> "accepted management standard" than NTP mode 6/7 packets in any case.
> I would welcome SNMP in NTP and have said so on a number of occasions.
> []
>> I agree, when you *need* ntpd features for specific applications. I
>> recommend w32time when you don't, as that is the simlpest from an
>> operational perspective. Keep it simple.
> In the cases I have seen recently, W32time simply isn't good enough.  
> One set of users are looking for sub-second accuracy (a lot with Windows 
> XP), and another set for about millisecond accuracy using Windows.  The 
> former can be reference NTP over the Internet, and the latter reference 
> NTP with a local GPS source.
>>> RFC1305 refers to NTP v3, by the way, but I think most are now on NTP 
>>> v4.
>> There is still no published RFC for NTPv4. Alternative implementers
>> cannot be expected to read the source code of the reference
>> implementation and track it for compatibiltiy and work-alike behavior.
> Completely agreed.  "You can read the source code" is no substitute for 
> a proper specification and test profile.
> Cheers,
> David

I seem to recall that it has been a year or two since NTP v4 was 
released.  At last reports a committee (God Help Us) was working on a 
draft of a new RFC for NTP.

A question for the committee if I may: "When does the vapor condense?"

More information about the questions mailing list