[Last-Call] Re: [EXT] [Ntp] Re: Re: Last Call: Status Change of NTPv2 and NTPv3 to Historic

["Windl, Ulrich" <u.windl@xxxxxx>]

Hi!

 

I still think that these old RFC have some interesting information inside that is missing in more recent RFCs on the same topic.

So I might agree to “historic, but not really obsolete” 😉

 

Kind regards,

Ulrich Windl

 

From: Daniel Franke <dfoxfranke@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2024 2:12 AM
To: Erik Kline <ek.ietf@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Brian Haberman <brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; last-call@xxxxxxxx; NTP WG <ntp@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: [EXT] [Ntp] Re: [Last-Call] Re: Last Call: Status Change of NTPv2 and NTPv3 to Historic

 

I agree: 5905 needs a bis before it should be considered for advancement. I wouldn't opposed advancing a well-written bis, but I'd prefer to to ship an NTPv5, let it bake as a proposed standard for a decade, and then revisit the issue.

 

On Wed, Dec 4, 2024, 20:07 Erik Kline <ek.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Is it also reasonable to consider advancing 5905 to Internet Standard?

 

If the NTP wg wanted to consider it that could make some sense.

 

I'm not 100% sure we could do that with a simple status change document, though.  There are several errata [1], and we might have to go the route of producing a -bis that addresses them (most of them could be solved by removing the embedded source code, but ... still).

 

[1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc5905

_______________________________________________
ntp mailing list -- ntp@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to ntp-leave@xxxxxxxx

-- 
last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx