daniel@xxxxxxxxx said: > I'm not entirely convinced of keeping a list of implementations in an RFC. > But since the information is there, let's at least have it corrected and > updated upon publishing. I thought it was a temporary section and would be deleted by the final editing pass when the TBDs were filled in. Traditionally, RFCs required running code, normally at least 2 independent implementations that can talk to each other. That section is useful while debugging and collects the data for the reviewers. ------- Speaking of TBDs... How do we contact the czar who assigns numbers for NTP extensions? We've all been testing with 4 values. It will be a pain if they change and I don't know of any reason not to make the values we are using official. -- These are my opinions. I hate spam. -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
