[ntpwg] SNTP and NTP servers

[David L. Mills]

Todd,

I am not prepared to craft, delegate or defend any license except what 
is in the copyright statement. I've said this many times before, even on 
occasion throwing a lawyer wanting special dispensation out of my 
office. Please do not raise this issue with me again.

Dave

TS Glassey wrote:

> Dave - I want to change the license for NTP so that people are not 
> allowed
> to use it for actions like what DLink did to various people on this 
> list who
> are still fielding its 'sales support' overhead.
>
> It is exactly the NTP License that has caused all of the 'Bad 
> Implementation' issues IMO. No one should be allowed a license to 
> implement a 'portion' of the NTP service because it prevents the rest 
> of us from being safe around it.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David L. Mills" <mills at udel.edu>
> Cc: "NTP Working Group" <ntpwg at lists.ntp.isc.org>; <dhcwg at ietf.org>
> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 9:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [ntpwg] SNTP and NTP servers
>
>
>> Danny,
>>
>> The NTP specification defines primary servers, secondary servers and
>> clients. Primary servers are synchronized to reference clocks and
>> conform to the SNTP or NTP specification, which is the same.
>
>
> IMHO - this is a problem not a solution. The SNTP handshaking/protocol
> should be constrainable so that NTP Servers can refuse service to SNTP
> Client's... The reason that Wisconsin happened is that a Commercial 
> Entitiy
> violated the generally accepted rules. The point is that the reason 
> that was
> possible is that the original license allowed them to. If the license had
> been properly written, then anyone would have 'recourse' and what 
> folks like
> DLink did to Poul-Henning and myself would have been avoidable.
>
>> SNTP
>> clients can synchronize to primary or secondary servers, but cannot
>> offer synchronization to clients of their own.
>
>
> I.e They can recieve synchronizations from NTP Servers,  but cannot in 
> turn
> offer that service to other client's. I.e. SNTP is limited to be used 
> as a
> receptor of time data and not a transmitter of it.
>
>> Secondary servers can
>> import time from primary or secondary servers and provide time to
>> dependent clients. Only they must provide the mitigation and discipline
>> algorithms.
>
>
> OK. My only pushback here is that there is NO mandatory implementation 
> model
> based on the "License" here - so we cannot control what is implemented 
> and
> what is not.
>
>> This is to avoid possible whiplash or other suboptimal
>> behavior. If you have alternate discriptions or verbage about the
>> specification prose, I would be happy to hear it.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> Danny Mayer wrote:
>>
>>> Just to clarify, SNTP clients can use both NTP Servers and SNTP Servers
>>> while SNTP servers cannot be used for NTP clients unless the have a
>>> refclock attached. Yes this a bit confusing but it is described in the
>>> current NTPv4 draft. See Section 14 of the draft. The SNTP packets are
>>> the same as the NTP packets.
>>>
>>> Danny
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ntpwg mailing list
>>> ntpwg at lists.ntp.org
>>> https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/ntpwg
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ntpwg mailing list
>> ntpwg at lists.ntp.org
>> https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/ntpwg
>
>