Hal Murray <hmur...@megapathdsl.net>:
> There is one more item that should be part of the ntpq rewrite: documentation
> for the mode 6 packets.
Agreed. This has been on my personal to-do list since I started working on
pyntpq. I figured the logical time to do it would be right after I finished
that move.
> I think some of that is specified in some RFC.
Not yet. I've actually exchanged email with someone who was working
on a draft. As of now there's nothing, and the draft author's
ambitions don't even extend to enumerating the variables and their
semantics, jusr describing the format.
> It would be good to have a column with a check box for RFC, dropped from RFC,
> addition... Maybe the addition should specify what version of ntpsec first
> supported it and/or what versions it was updated.
Yes. So far there's only one such change, associated with our move from driver
type numbers to names. Tough to notice since nothing but human eyeballs ever
used either field - ntpq didn't interpret either of them.
There was one other change - I had added a "displayname" variable -
but it turned out that could be renoved in vavor of setting srchost
and I did that recently. Even does the right thing with legacy ntpq.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@ntpsec.org
http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
