[ntpwg] KISS codes

[Odonoghue, Karen F CIV NSWCDD, W13]

Danny and Harlan,

I was wondering about this issue earlier today as I was working through 
all the comments received. My question is based on other discussions on
this mailing list related to whether or not we are representing 
current practice. Along that vein, would it make sense to change
"MUST" to "SHOULD" in Danny's proposed text? I can go either way
but I was struggling with identifying the consensus...

Karen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ntpwg-bounces+karen.odonoghue=navy.mil at lists.ntp.org 
> [mailto:ntpwg-bounces+karen.odonoghue=navy.mil at lists.ntp.org] 
> On Behalf Of Harlan Stenn
> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 0:15
> To: mayer at gis.net
> Cc: NTP Working Group
> Subject: Re: [ntpwg] KISS codes
> 
> Danny,
> 
> In general, I really like your proposal.  I haven't said 
> anything about it because I'm not aware of any reasons it's a 
> bad idea and that concerns me.  I figure there *has* to be 
> some cases where what you describe inappropriate.
> 
> For how long must a server stop sending packets to the server in this
> case:
> 
> a) For kiss codes: DENY, RSTR the client MUST demobilize any 
>    associations to that server and stop sending packets to that 
>    server;
> 
> Is it a good idea to better define the "reduction" mentioned here:
> 
> b) For kiss code: RATE the client MUST immediately reduce its polling 
>    interval to that server and continue to reduce it each time it 
>    receives a RATE kiss code. 
> 
> H
> _______________________________________________
> ntpwg mailing list
> ntpwg at lists.ntp.org
> https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/ntpwg
>