On 2/19/2020 12:48 AM, Hal Murray wrote: > > 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. As long as we're talking about the original 0x0n04 values I agree with you. -- Harlan Stenn <stenn@xxxxxxxxxx> http://networktimefoundation.org - be a member! -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
