>>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Unruh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Unruh> David Woolley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> You didn't read what I wrote. I said that the meaning of sntp in this >> context was a program that was a minimal SNTP implementation (it performs >> a single exchange with a single server). Unruh> I did read it and am objecting to using the program name sntp to Unruh> refer to something different from what the rfc says sntp is. By my read and understanding of the RFC, SNTP as a protocol is designed to be used to set the time once, quickly, and ordinarily would not have an attached refclock (and therefore would not be a long-running daemon). Therefore, 'sntp' seems to me to be a perfectly good name for a program that does the work David describes. It also matches what has been implemented. I seem to be missing something you are seeing - what do you think the RFC expects from an SNTP implementation? I'm talking about a client-only implementation, not a barebones "I'm talking to a refclock and will answer NTP queries" server. -- Harlan Stenn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://ntpforum.isc.org - be a member! _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
