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

David L. Mills mills at udel.edu
Tue Apr 26 03:42:21 UTC 2005


Christopher,

The "bureucrats" are keenly aware of my position, which has been argued 
since 1992.

Dave

Christopher Browne wrote:

> Martha Stewart called it a Good Thing when "David L. Mills" <mills at udel.edu> wrote:
> 
>>Christopher,
>>
>>Look more carefully. NTPv3 (rfc1305) was and is only a draft standard,
>>not a full standard. That is because I refused then and now to package
>>the document in Postel ASCII. My grant supporting NTPv4 specification
>>now in progress specifically states that my contribution will not
>>require Postel ASCII. All other standards bodies known to me prefer
>>standards publication in PDF, which is the only format I will use. It
>>might well be the case that a NTPv4 specification will never become a
>>full standard unless somebody else does the conversion. Thus, there is
>>no excuse to avoid deploying NTPv4 on the basis of standard.
> 
> 
> Well, what may be the case is that in the absence of Postel ASCII,
> NTPv4 may never become a full standard ("full stop"), and therefore
> not be treated as a standard.
> 
> I'd like to see it deployed, standard RFC or no, but I'm not the one
> that determines this.  It's presumably some bureucrat type to whom
> your comments aren't worth anything because they don't carry some
> bureaucratic seal of approval.  "IETF approved?  No?  Then we can't
> run it."
> 
> We'd have to wait until the level of respect for the IETF fades
> sufficiently that I'd have some other concerns...



More information about the questions mailing list