[ntp:questions] WARNING: someone's faking a leap second tonight

Richard B. Gilbert rgilbert88 at comcast.net
Sat Aug 4 19:47:39 UTC 2012


On 8/4/2012 12:28 PM, unruh wrote:
> On 2012-08-04, David Woolley <david at ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
>> Harlan Stenn wrote:
>>>> Oh, my mistake:  I quote RFC5905 below, which is for NTPv4, which is
>>>> technically in _draft_ status - though it does seem pretty far along and
>>>> I believe current ntpd adheres to NTPv4, not v3.
>>>
>>> The NTP code *defines* the spec, and there will be times when the
>>
>> I think you mean the "ntpd reference implementation", e.g. Microsoft's
>> NTP code does not define the standard.
>
> And it is a reference implimentation, not the definition. Ie, it is an
> implimentation that is supposed to follow the standard. It does not
> define the standard.
>>
>> Also, I don't think this is the correct relationship between RFCs and
>> reference implementations.  An RFC specifies the protocol for a specific
>
> I think that the reference implimentation impliments a specific rfc. Ie,
> the rfc comes first.
>
>> reference implementation.  If you do more than fix bugs in the reference
>> implementation, you need a new RFC before it becomes the standard.
>
> An rfc is just a request for comments. It is NOT a standard. It may
> become one ( although I think none of the ntp rfcs have actually ever
> become standards).
>
>>
>>

It's unlikely to become a standard until people stop tinkering with it!
It's pure hell trying to "standardize" a moving target.

The standard, when published, must satisfy meet the needs of the 
community.  It won't be easy.  We've had something that works for most 
of us for the last few years.  With a bit of luck we can have "this is 
how it works and these are the standards that a conforming 
implementation must meet".

Blood will flow before we get a standard we can all agree on. 
Hopefully, only people I don't like will be killed. ;-)




More information about the questions mailing list