Re: [Ntp] Antw: [EXT] Re: Public NTP servers already responds to NTPv5

[Hal Murray <[e-mail]>]

[e-mail] said:
> I had a similar idea: Instead of specifying "version=n" for a client, an
> implementation might allow "versions=5,4" or "verlist=5,4" or
> "version_list=5,4" to specify that it would like to use NTPv5, but if that
> fails (more than one packet, please!) try NTPv4; if that fails, trat the
> server as unreachable. Of course the list could also include NTPv3... 

That doesn't effect the on-the-wire protocol.

It's a good idea and should probably be mentioned in any NTPv5 documentation 
if only to make sure that people think about it since much of the current code 
doesn't work that way and our thinking might get stuck in a rut.  But it 
should be off in a notes-to-implementers footnote rather than the main 
protocol description.

Have we identified any protocol features where somebody might want to do that?

-- 
These are my opinions.  I hate spam.