Richard,
Thanks for the review. I'm happy to hear from others.
Dave
Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
Dave,
Thanks for the pointer to the draft protocol spec. It does explain
things a little more clearly.
If I may get very picky, I spotted a couple of problems with the
document. The first was the word "ant" where I believe you meant
"and". The other was the use of "decimal point" when referring to a
binary word. I think that "binary point" would be a better choice.
David L. Mills wrote:
Richard,
Well, I wrote 1305 fourteen years ago when I was just a kid. The
on-wire >draft< protocol spec for NTPv4 now on the project page at
http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~mills/database/brief/flow/ntp4.pdf is
hopefully much more explicit.
Dave
Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
Dave,
In that case, I think RFC 1305 needs some clarification. Page 100
_______________________________________________
questions mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
