Re: RFC 1305

[Bob Braden <braden@ISI.EDU>]

  *> 
  *> On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, Thomas Narten wrote:
  *> 
  *> > > Why hasn't RFC 1305 (Network Time Protocol spec) advanced from Draft
  *> > > Standard to Full Standard and assumed its reserved STD 12 slot?
  *> >
  *> > Is this document actually old and (in practice) obsoleted by RFC 1769,
  *> > which is informational rather than on standards track due to the
  *> > author arguing that ascii is insufficient to explain all the relevant
  *> > parts? Hence, things are sort of stuck?
  *> 
  *> RFC 1769 (Simple NTP) does not replace RFC 1305 (NTP) because it is a
  *> simplification.  However, Scott Bradner did already reply to me
  *> without cc'ing the lists that the reason 1305 is stuck is indeed
  *> because Dave Mills refuses to make an ASCII version that can stand as
  *> the official one.  So, my question has been answered, thanks.
  *> 
  *> I suggested to Scott that perhaps what we need is for a creative
  *> volunteer to attempt to render 1305 in ASCII and then see if Dave can
  *> be convinced to accept it.  I suspect that more than 50% of his
  *> objection is not wanting to spend the effort rather than an assertion
  *> that an adequate result is impossible.  The diagrams in 1305 are all
  *> feasible for ASCII rendering, but there is some significant math with
  *> plenty of Greek.  It's not impossible, though.
  *> 
  *> Assuming that step could be completed successfully, the result can't
  *> become rfc1305.txt because there already is one (though crude and
  *> incomplete).  I guess instead the result would need to be issued as a
  *> new RFC that is classified as "updating" 1305.  It could contain an
  *> introductory paragraph referring the reader to rfc1305.ps for a
  *> prettier version.
  *> 
  *>                                                         -- Steve
  *> 

I believe that Steve is entirely correct.  Two years ago I skirmished
with Father Time in an attempt to get the tangled web of NTP RFCs
straightened out, and as Scott says, DM was less than interested.

Bob Braden