Subject: [TICTOC] Control Messages Protocol for Use with Network Time Protocol Version 4

From: Danny Mayer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2011 16:12:17 -0500

Hi Karen,

Reading over the minutes of the taipei meeting I saw references to this
document but I never saw a draft announcement. Is this published so that
it can be reviewed?

Thanks,
Danny

---

From: Karen O'Donoghue <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2011 18:35:02 -0500

Hi Danny. I think there was a glitch in the draft announcement because I 
didn't specify it for the ntp working group in the draft submission 
process. The document should move to a working group instead of being an 
individual submission, but we haven't done that yet.

The draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-odonoghue-ntpv4-control/

I really just tried to get the ball rolling on this. Dave Hart and 
Harlen Stenn are working to update the content. Comments are definitely 
welcome.

Karen

---

From: Danny Mayer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2011 21:51:36 -0500

> Harlen Stenn are working to update the content. Comments are definitely

If you want people to vote to adopt the document into the WG then you
get a +1 from me.

Danny

---

From: "David L. Mills" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 17:13:04 +0000

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

Danny Mayer wrote:

>_______________________________________________
>ntpwg mailing list
>[email-masked]
>http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/ntpwg
>  
>

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 17:37:37 +0000

Dave,

This is the document I gave you a heads up on last fall. You suggested I bring Dave Hart into the loop. Dave provided the updates reflected in -01. As a listed author, you should be receiving the draft announcements. If this isn't happening, I will need to look into why. 

Anyhow, I am looking to the ntp developer community to provide the update and review necessary to make this accurate. The material was not captured in the update to RFC 1305 and we'd like to fix that. 

Karen

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: "David L. Mills" <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 17:13:04 
To: Danny Mayer<[email-masked]>
Cc: NTP Working Group<[email-masked]>; [email-masked]<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [TICTOC] [ntpwg] Control Messages Protocol for Use with Network
 Time Protocol Version 4

_______________________________________________
TICTOC mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc

---

From: Danny Mayer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 20:32:34 -0500

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