Re: [Ntp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ntp-mode-6-cmds-09.txt

[Harlan Stenn <[e-mail]>]

On 6/23/2020 10:15 AM, Salz, Rich wrote:
>> I believe the WG does not wish to convey "reference
>> implementation"
> 
>> The WG as a whole certainly does not believe that.
> 
> Sorry if I mislead you by not saying "the consensus of the WG"

Thanks, and I believe the mislead was to more than just me.

>> I know some prefer to deny the heritage.
> 
> I cannot comment to that.

What is your opinion on the subject, then?

>> What other full reference implementation is out there?
> 
> The IETF does not have the concept of a reference implementation.
> Maybe it used to.  But for a WG to use the term "reference
> implementation" it implies a cachet, at least, that is at odds with
> some of the core principles of interop and RFC's.

The NTP Project's release has long been called the reference
implementation, in many IETF publications and discussions.  It's not an
implicit cachet, it's an obvious and long-standing fact.

The NTP Project's code base has, to date, been the base from which all
previous IETF NTP Standards have been based on.  Many have written
less-complete implementations that successfully interoperate with the
reference implementation and with other implementations.

What else could it be called?

Who gains by these attempts to strip the NTP Project's codebase of its
rightfully- and long-earned title as a (complete) reference
implementation of NTP?

> The IETF does not
> distribute source code, therefore it would also be wrong for the IETF
> to name someone as a reference implementation.

The IETF isn't naming anything.  The name/title came first, from outside
of the IETF.

By your logic, the IETF is also in no position to deny us that
name/title, either.

-- 
Harlan Stenn <[e-mail]>
http://networktimefoundation.org - be a member!