In article <20090316063319.f2...@bulldog.localhost.org>, hun...@comcast.net (Rob Neal) wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, Joseph Gwinn wrote: > > > In article <qo6dnzljdv8z4cdunz2dnuvz_hwwn...@giganews.com>, > > "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilber...@comcast.net> wrote: > > [snip] > > > >>> The FAQ has to be the place for such explanations. > >> > >> I'm not sure if this qualifies as an FAQ as I don't recall that it has > >> come up before. FAQ stands for Frequently Asked Questions. > > > > RAQ then? Rarely Asked Questions > > > > Seriously, I can't believe that I'm the only person in history to be > > perplexed by these status codes, and those little three-word summaries > > are a bit telegraphic. > You have lots of company, sadly. A decoder function would > be 'Good'. There are obstacles to this, as remarked by > others, and a serious lack of volunteer time to code a > solution. No one will stop you, if you wish to contribute.... > In the current build I find the TEST status codes in > ntp.h. They have changed, from release to release, so > consult your source for particulars. > There has been considerable improvement in NTP from > V3 to V4. You should consider upgrading, it really > is better. I already have a decoder function, coded in Mathematica, based on Appendix B of RFC-1305, which ought to work for NTPv3. The problem is one of documentation, as RFC-1305 is pretty telegraphic, although it does point one to the descriptions of the relevant tests. I gather that the actual NTPv3 code does not really follow RFC-1305. That seems to be the bottom line. Joe _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions