Hi Hal,
(Changed subject to match your question below)
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.
If you are talking about NTP extension field types [0], they do require IETF review for allocation (i.e. no czar). Writing up a draft with your usage and sending it over to the ntp wg for consideration would be the best way forward.
|
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
