Re: [Ntp] Last Call: <draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp-22.txt> (Network Time Security for the Network Time Protocol) to Proposed Standard

[Harlan Stenn <[e-mail]>]

I think a list of implementations is a bad idea.

Does the WG really want to deal with the ongoing updates, and the
liability that will likely exist if the list is incorrect, or it is
decided that updates will no longer be made?

H

On 2/18/2020 11:23 PM, Daniel Lublin wrote:
> Good day,
> 
> 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.
> 
> Updated XML for the whole section 8.6. Implementation 6 follows.
> 
>   <section title="Implementation 6">
>     <t>Organization: Hacklunch, independent</t>
> 
>     <t>Implementor: Michael Cardell Widerkrantz, Daniel Lublin, Martin Samuelsson et. al.</t>
> 
>     <t>Maturity: interoperable client, immature server</t>
> 
>     <section title="Coverage">
>       <t>NTS-KE client and server.</t>
>     </section>
> 
>     <section title="Licensing">
>       <t>Licensing is ISC (details in LICENSE file).</t>
> 
>       <t>Source code is available at:
>       https://gitlab.com/hacklunch/ntsclient</t>
>     </section>
> 
>     <section title="Contact Information">
>       <t>Contact Michael Cardell Widerkrantz: [e-mail]</t>
>     </section>
> 
>     <section title="Last Update">
>       <t>The implementation was updated 6. February 2020.</t>
>     </section>
>   </section>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ntp mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp
> 

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