Re: [time-nuts] Need Time Help

2016-10-06 Thread Hal Murray
> It wouldn't take much to persuade me to drop this 'feature', then. I have no strong opinions. The build default is off. We don't have anybody testing it. On the other hand, it was useful for somebody and it isn't a lot of code and it isn't the sort of code that attracts security problems.

Re: [time-nuts] Need Time Help

2016-10-06 Thread Eric S. Raymond
Daniel Franke : > On 10/6/16, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > > It wouldn't take much to persuade me to drop this 'feature', then. > > I still need to re-implement it in the refactored protocol code, but I > see no need to drop it permanently. It's not a lot of code because a > separate daemon (part of

Re: [time-nuts] Need Time Help

2016-10-06 Thread Daniel Franke
On 10/6/16, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > It wouldn't take much to persuade me to drop this 'feature', then. I still need to re-implement it in the refactored protocol code, but I see no need to drop it permanently. It's not a lot of code because a separate daemon (part of Samba) does the heavy liftin

Re: [time-nuts] Need Time Help

2016-10-06 Thread Eric S. Raymond
Daniel Franke : > AD is Active Directory. Windows NTP works just fine without MS-SNTP. It wouldn't take much to persuade me to drop this 'feature', then. -- http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond ___ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.

Re: [time-nuts] Need Time Help

2016-10-06 Thread Daniel Franke
On 10/6/16, Hal Murray wrote: >> The special case being all Windows boxes. > > No, only the ones that use feature xxx. (I don't know what that is. It has > > something to do with security and AD (Area Directors?).) AD is Active Directory. Windows NTP works just fine without MS-SNTP. The acrony

Re: [time-nuts] Need Time Help

2016-10-06 Thread Hal Murray
> The special case being all Windows boxes. No, only the ones that use feature xxx. (I don't know what that is. It has something to do with security and AD (Area Directors?).) It's not enabled by default on ntp-classic. I've never seen the sort of comment that would happen all the time if it

Re: [time-nuts] Need Time Help

2016-10-06 Thread Gary E. Miller
Yo Hal! On Thu, 06 Oct 2016 01:02:56 -0700 Hal Murray wrote: > > This deliberately discards interleave interleave support. > > Peer mode may be broken, broadcast modes probably are broken, > > MS-SNTP is not reimplemented. > > The MS-SNTP stuff is a special hack to get the packet sig

Re: [time-nuts] Need Time Help

2016-10-06 Thread Hal Murray
> This deliberately discards interleave interleave support. Peer > mode may be broken, broadcast modes probably are broken, MS-SNTP > is not reimplemented. The MS-SNTP stuff is a special hack to get the packet signed by a microsoft server. It's not supported by the poo

Re: [time-nuts] Need Time Help

2016-10-06 Thread Gary E. Miller
Yo Hal! On Wed, 05 Oct 2016 23:38:44 -0700 Hal Murray wrote: > g...@rellim.com said: > > Looks like NTPsec really need SNTP to support Windows clients, and > > the accuracy needs are minimal. > > SNTP and real NTP use the same packet formats so we can already > support Windows clients. Plea

Re: Fw: [time-nuts] Need Time Help

2016-10-05 Thread Hal Murray
g...@rellim.com said: > Looks like NTPsec really need SNTP to support Windows clients, and the > accuracy needs are minimal. SNTP and real NTP use the same packet formats so we can already support Windows clients. -- These are my opinions. I hate spam. ___

Fw: [time-nuts] Need Time Help

2016-10-05 Thread Gary E. Miller
Yo All! There has been an interesting discussion of late on time-nuts about how bad Windows timekeeping is. This one snippet is very relavant to current NTPsec plans: From: Tim Shoppa > I agree that the built in Microsoft tools are SNTP only and will not > work at the 15ms level. Looks like N