Skip to content

Conversation

progval
Copy link
Member

@progval progval commented Jan 14, 2022

Addresses #154 (comment)

Though I am not sure this is correct in the presence of a bouncer. Bouncers would reply to PING with their own time, while TIME would be forwarded to the server, right?

@progval progval added the feedback wanted We need to make sure this is correct label Jan 14, 2022
@slingamn
Copy link
Contributor

That's an interesting point about bouncers. If bouncers are expected to forward TIME to the upstream server, I guess we could recommend using the time tag on the RPL_TIME response instead?

@emersion
Copy link
Contributor

emersion commented Mar 3, 2022

Though I am not sure this is correct in the presence of a bouncer. Bouncers would reply to PING with their own time, while TIME would be forwarded to the server, right?

Yup.

That's an interesting point about bouncers. If bouncers are expected to forward TIME to the upstream server, I guess we could recommend using the time tag on the RPL_TIME response instead?

Do existing servers supporting server-time attach a time tag to the RPL_TIME response?

@progval
Copy link
Member Author

progval commented Feb 26, 2023

Done in #176

@progval progval closed this Feb 26, 2023
@progval
Copy link
Member Author

progval commented Feb 26, 2023

hmm, the underlying question isn't answered though

@progval progval reopened this Feb 26, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
feedback wanted We need to make sure this is correct
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants