Gary E. Miller via devel <devel@ntpsec.org>: > We prolly need to start a doc somewhere for what we want answered.
Start a new section in nts.adoc, please. In fact, I'll do it now.
Done. Achim, you were complaining about underspecification. Please
describe your issues in this succession. We'll have someone at that
meeting; I'll do it myself if need be.
> IMHO I see no issues with the binary format. Network protocols have dealt
> with network byte order for a long time.
Yes, they have, and it's a chronic source of shtoopid bugs. Repeating bad
practice doesn't make it un-bad.
The only justification for a binary wire format is when request volume
times frequency is high enough that the marshalling/unmarshalling
overhead would cause an unacceptable performance hit. Almost never
the case in an application protocol, and not going to be here.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
My work is funded by the Internet Civil Engineering Institute: https://icei.org
Please visit their site and donate: the civilization you save might be your own.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
