IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Ntp] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-ntp-ntpv5-02.txt

Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com> Mon, 29 July 2024 06:45 UTC

Return-Path: <mlichvar@redhat.com>
X-Original-To: ntp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ntp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13550C14F705 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Jul 2024 23:45:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.253
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.253 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.148, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Grjm730efWte for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Jul 2024 23:45:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83C82C14F6F4 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Sun, 28 Jul 2024 23:45:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1722235551; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=VROHRPSkYQWkdiXzj8hGbYb3OB3LudyJTV+SXPOylbc=; b=H66Tr53tBwAvvbFIxvQOAypdKIkbIEGa2a1R6H7aTvaS/I4yjg4xFtLlCw+VXIs8toqM6U G3wB6WK/GFFJXCMTNW0Id78L2uMuwdvc+tsNGN3AAkabkdMGrdxif4hmKULWXeKq79yE8A wPAZyuZifLxCnR3okZJG13Y/c/cLRXM=
Received: from mx-prod-mc-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-436-hVQvzcM6PWuE8VZ_QE4ZTA-1; Mon, 29 Jul 2024 02:45:48 -0400
X-MC-Unique: hVQvzcM6PWuE8VZ_QE4ZTA-1
Received: from mx-prod-int-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.12]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C25C719560AB; Mon, 29 Jul 2024 06:45:47 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (unknown [10.43.135.229]) by mx-prod-int-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D80319560AE; Mon, 29 Jul 2024 06:45:46 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 08:45:44 +0200
From: Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com>
To: Dieter Sibold <dsibold.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Zqc6mPZDkKigsyLS@localhost>
References: <171880149775.17275.17603202157290281888@ietfa.amsl.com> <AM7PR02MB576576740392B0B63189B4EFCFD42@AM7PR02MB5765.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com> <CAKtkH6yn4X1Eo8Mh1LY0zC9doX_Yxh8Aw=7iPHDxg1p=K0dERA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKtkH6yn4X1Eo8Mh1LY0zC9doX_Yxh8Aw=7iPHDxg1p=K0dERA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.0 on 10.30.177.12
X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0
X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-ID-Hash: PPXSO56ZNWNW75C5GZ7VBTXWO7KLAIMP
X-Message-ID-Hash: PPXSO56ZNWNW75C5GZ7VBTXWO7KLAIMP
X-MailFrom: mlichvar@redhat.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-ntp.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: Doug Arnold <doug.arnold=40meinberg-usa.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "ntp@ietf.org" <ntp@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [Ntp] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-ntp-ntpv5-02.txt
List-Id: Network Time Protocol <ntp.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/-BDOKmNegJT5HQPKfhysw5QaJ8A>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ntp>
List-Help: <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:ntp-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ntp@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:ntp-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ntp-leave@ietf.org>

On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 09:15:56PM +0200, Dieter Sibold wrote:
> I'm wondering why the information about the unknown leap is transmitted by
> the field Flags and not bei the field LI? Would it not make sense that all
> leap seconds related information is transmitted by the Leap Indicator field
> LI? Could the meaning of LI=3 and Flag=1 be swapped? Or are there technical
> reasons against this?

Good question.

I agree it would be cleaner to have those meanings swapped. The
question is if it's worth the potential confusion and additional
complexity in implementations that want to support both NTPv4 and
NTPv5. I think I'd not mind that.

Any other opinions?

-- 
Miroslav Lichvar

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status