Re: [ntpwg] mode 6 packets and the system status word

Harlan Stenn <stenn@ntp.org> Sun, 04 May 2008 17:57 UTC

Return-Path: <ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C43B3A6E79 for <ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 May 2008 10:57:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yTiTd1dSdkE6 for <ietfarch-ntp-archives-ahFae6za@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 May 2008 10:57:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail1.ntp.org (mail1.ntp.org [204.152.184.126]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4DA53A6E72 for <ntp-archives-ahFae6za@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 4 May 2008 10:57:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ntp1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail1.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D70FE39EC1 for <ntp-archives-ahFae6za@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 4 May 2008 17:57:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org)
X-Original-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
Delivered-To: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail1.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6EC739E72; Sun, 4 May 2008 17:57:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from stenn@ntp1.ntp.org)
Received: from mail1.ntp.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ntp1.isc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 44438-07; Sun, 4 May 2008 17:56:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ntp1.ntp.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail1.ntp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP; Sun, 4 May 2008 17:56:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from stenn@ntp1.ntp.org)
To: "David L. Mills" <mills@udel.edu>
In-Reply-To: Message from "David L. Mills" <mills@udel.edu> of "Sun, 04 May 2008 05:18:23 GMT." <481D471F.6010607@udel.edu>
X-Mailer: MH-E 7.4.2; nmh 1.0.4; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 14)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 1.8)
Date: Sun, 04 May 2008 17:56:33 +0000
From: Harlan Stenn <stenn@ntp.org>
Message-Id: <20080504175705.C6EC739E72@mail1.ntp.org>
Cc: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
Subject: Re: [ntpwg] mode 6 packets and the system status word
X-BeenThere: ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Working Group for Network Time Protocol <ntpwg.lists.ntp.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/ntpwg>, <mailto:ntpwg-request@lists.ntp.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ntp.org/pipermail/ntpwg>
List-Post: <mailto:ntpwg@lists.ntp.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ntpwg-request@lists.ntp.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/ntpwg>, <mailto:ntpwg-request@lists.ntp.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org
Errors-To: ntpwg-bounces+ntp-archives-ahfae6za=lists.ietf.org@lists.ntp.org

Dave,

I think you are dead wrong in your belief that this is a failed mission,
but perhaps we have different definitions of "the mission".

And I'm not necessarily talking about the protocol document, unless
somebody makes the entirely plausible argument that since Figure 10 of
the specification document says that association mode 6 is an NTP
control message, we have an obligation to either specify the format and
content of a mode 6 message in the document or point folks at a
different document that *does* specify that information.

H
--
> You have a failed mission. The state codes have nothing to do with the 
> specification document. There might be a connection between what might 
> later be defined with the ntpd monitoring protocol, but that has nothing 
> to do with the specification.
> 
> Dave
> 
> Harlan Stenn wrote:
> 
> > Dave,
> >
> > Dave wrote:
> >
> >> Surely you know the status words happened to be defined in an appendix
> >> to rfc1305 and not revelant to the baseline specification.
> >
> >
> > Yes on #1, I don't care on #2, and rfc1305 is about to be obsoleted if I
> > understand things correctly, and with our almost resolved flap over the
> > "state" variable I need either a pending or an active RFC that will
> > address the issue of "how can we determine if an instance of NTP
> > believes it is 'OK' or not, and exactly what is meant by 'OK'?"
> >
> > H
> > --
> >
> >> Harlan Stenn wrote:
> >>
> >>> Folks,
> >>>
> >>> 1305 documents the "system status word" that is returned in the status
> >>> field of the response to a read status or read variables command with a
> >>> zero association identifier.
> >>>
> >>> Where are these things specified in the NTPv4 specification?
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> ntpwg mailing list
> >> ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
> >> https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/ntpwg
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ntpwg mailing list
> ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
> https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/ntpwg
_______________________________________________
ntpwg mailing list
ntpwg@lists.ntp.org
https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/ntpwg