Re: Documentation request/opportunity

2017-04-26 Thread Gary E. Miller via devel
Yo Hal! On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 03:33:14 -0700 Hal Murray via devel wrote: > [What packet types do we support?] > > man ntp.conf says: >peer >NTP peer mode has been removed for security reasons. peer > is now just an alias for the server keyword. See above. > > It's not clear w

Re: Documentation request/opportunity

2017-04-26 Thread Eric S. Raymond via devel
Hal Murray : > [What packet types do we support?] > > man ntp.conf says: >peer >NTP peer mode has been removed for security reasons. peer is now >just an alias for the server keyword. See above. > > It's not clear what "has been removed" means. Just the server set

Re: Documentation request/opportunity

2017-04-26 Thread Hal Murray via devel
[What packet types do we support?] man ntp.conf says: peer NTP peer mode has been removed for security reasons. peer is now just an alias for the server keyword. See above. It's not clear what "has been removed" means. Just the server setup command or support for t

Re: Documentation request/opportunity

2017-04-25 Thread Eric S. Raymond
Hal Murray : > > g...@rellim.com said: > >> I think we need a chart/table showing the types of packets we send > >> and expect to receive. > > How about the RFC? I would hate to duplicate that. > > No, that's not what I'm looking for. > > We only implement a subset of the full spec. For examp

Re: Documentation request/opportunity

2017-04-13 Thread Gary E. Miller
Yo Hal! On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 13:25:27 -0700 Hal Murray wrote: > I forgot to mention that there are two uses for the document I'm > looking for. > > One is to compare what we have with ntp classic. > The other is to understand the code. Since you seem to understand the code the best, I guess you

Re: Documentation request/opportunity

2017-04-13 Thread Hal Murray
> Wow, it does sound pretty Rube Goldberg the way you describe it. I think that's why it took me so long to figure it out. I forgot to mention that there are two uses for the document I'm looking for. One is to compare what we have with ntp classic. The other is to understand the code. -- The

Re: Documentation request/opportunity

2017-04-13 Thread Gary E. Miller
Yo Hal! On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 12:58:09 -0700 Hal Murray wrote: > g...@rellim.com said: > >> I think we need a chart/table showing the types of packets we send > >> and expect to receive. > > How about the RFC? I would hate to duplicate that. > > No, that's not what I'm looking for. > > We

Re: Documentation request/opportunity

2017-04-13 Thread Hal Murray
g...@rellim.com said: >> I think we need a chart/table showing the types of packets we send >> and expect to receive. > How about the RFC? I would hate to duplicate that. No, that's not what I'm looking for. We only implement a subset of the full spec. For example, we don't implement the pee

Re: Documentation request/opportunity

2017-04-13 Thread Gary E. Miller
Yo Hal! On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 00:45:07 -0700 Hal Murray wrote: > I think we need a chart/table showing the types of packets we send > and expect to receive. How about the RFC? I would hate to duplicate that. https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5905.txt > And another table of the config commands and th

Documentation request/opportunity

2017-04-13 Thread Hal Murray
I think we need a chart/table showing the types of packets we send and expect to receive. And another table of the config commands and the packets they generate/process. Maybe there should be notes about the meaning of the old/classic types/commands that we no longer support. -- I f