Dave, I don't think that event codes should be documented in an RFC. They belong in the reference implementation documentation. They are specific to the reference implementation but other implementations need to be doing the own thing in this regard. I'm sure chrony doesn't use them, for example. If the status words are standard then they belong in the RFC.
Danny On 12/26/2011 12:13 PM, David L. Mills wrote: > Danny, > > This is the first I have seen the document, but my name is on it, so I > should respond. > > The document from which this is derived is twenty years old, although > it has been updated for recent developments. However, the system per and > clock status words do not align with those defined in the current ntpq > and status/event codes defined in the current reference implementation > documenttation. I suggest the description of the status words in the ID > be changed to agree with the documentaiton or the documentatino and > implementation be changed to agree with the ID. > > The intent in the event codes is to align them with the protostats > statistics file messages. These are define din the header files. While > these change from time to time, some kind of reference should be made to > the current list. I don't think this should be the IANA, so maybe the > reference should be to the current documentation. > > Dave _______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
