David,
Thanks for the spy. I took a look at the pages you mention. There's a
couple of points that should be made and they have nothing to do with
the excellence of lack of it with either their implementation our "ours".
1. I don't know why they even consider xntpd. That hasn't been the
standard of comparison for at least eight years.
2. The IETF folks and especially me would very much welcome new kids on
the block, but only if they conform to spec, whatever that means now.
They can claim RFC-1305 and/or RFC-2030 or, best yet, they can
participate in the current IETF task force on NTPv4 specification. They
would then get the chance to argue changes and improvements, as was said
about the frequency problem.
Dave
David Magda wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Just thought that this group would be interested to know that there's
> is a new NTP implementaiton being done by the DragonBSD
> people (the commit messages in the client.c file show some of the
> refinements that were done after the initial commit):
>
> http://www.dragonflybsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/usr.sbin/dntpd/
>
> There's a bit more explanation of the "why" in this e-mail message:
>
> http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/mailarchive/commits/2005-04/msg00402.html
>
> I originally learnt about this in the following weblog entry:
>
> http://www.shiningsilence.com/dbsdlog/archives/001093.html
> |