IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ntp] My thoughts on flags

"Dieter Sibold" <dsibold.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 23 July 2019 15:37 UTC

Return-Path: <dsibold.ietf@gmail.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 C9003120428 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 08:37:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wMx4_dr3uEoN for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 08:37:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x434.google.com (mail-wr1-x434.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::434]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 406061203D6 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 08:37:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x434.google.com with SMTP id r1so43678496wrl.7 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 08:37:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version; bh=Se3JAMNAVxzvTWbXxnx6gWFv/nHlIEvXy7xlSROMG/k=; b=pSh6lKqoD7Cxu/hedzSt8vddvK61haTzNJLFsLPz7KPFNZI/Lf7zOqhFzqm21X3x0G cF6vllruefzEOHYgg5Etw39zvh+erPhdp+5QvsSbzuHDe99mrzDHJ1GbH8kp6SX/ZS8b WQ4rlkNwajZzD4BoepKjVdzLO1YAmhKR7itMt4hcZk8ky0KTtotNC7IfUmc8pyHwnS8z CYq0oE7oppCF0a/2+BFW9RiMH0gGF+Fm7bEYhM14aJByoblQrNDPC9Vnd89FXrP18FcC FFa7ggggppR99Zho980fvPuigVYCgZDkdFe+fWu89fAapcwXXUWs6wTU4BiwUWYVNpQa HeaQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version; bh=Se3JAMNAVxzvTWbXxnx6gWFv/nHlIEvXy7xlSROMG/k=; b=hK6pDc5W7GKllY/U+pe04tLeey+pJ6CtU1jkXT3joY5i/YTHe6jq7JPfzBCEhjmvaH PHlF7TlISdmVDfcB2ZE+1uUSGNcl8stj9EUIO76flowPvS1foTvWyxxaKrfXi1cr0Eic PfKQsk1Rq2iEsSmFP3CQLo+BSH9vn9lgCq8p4hmMf+DdwhzXoAbI+VCS0s9GUZl8E+yo zGYjgZYYVXopibrp/DSJ8QsmFmKDU0k+cwKCttVjsD6Z8Uxz4f7VE7FcF6+JTDwujCkm dZanX7KK+DK76obQbgoTdYeOIEeGFvt4l0zaO79IFzuVkdEVr6pPx8Pxi77fBev4CAcD ESfg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUq0Va/IcA5x+foXolkRgR24cQ0PiWdHZwDaV2Ri4JpjDYLjjJY IyuF1Pxc5CDwjIfmPisZbjI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxa8LY6F0l85GTeH3j/pLAD8hxkRjEgwb+tbMe+g4KVL2sWiF5X78aj7Syf9CBUKFYoaMfRRA==
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:53c2:: with SMTP id a2mr3838911wrw.8.1563896231735; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 08:37:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.111.101] (p2E501817.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [46.80.24.23]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i12sm47790459wrx.61.2019.07.23.08.37.10 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 23 Jul 2019 08:37:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dieter Sibold <dsibold.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
Cc: NTP WG <ntp@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 11:37:08 -0400
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.12.5r5635)
Message-ID: <2E1D324C-AEDC-477E-B92C-BF33E0988524@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACsn0c=KTv8KncL43Y_K-M5fe8vpNYSOAfYU6FD2VTtjDKNg_g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACsn0c=KTv8KncL43Y_K-M5fe8vpNYSOAfYU6FD2VTtjDKNg_g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/-cD3BWaY3sy7-TY6ahvr_E0tleY>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] My thoughts on flags
X-BeenThere: ntp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ntp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ntp>, <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ntp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ntp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp>, <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:37:24 -0000

Dieter Sibold
dsibold.ietf@gmail.com

On 23 Jul 2019, at 0:37, Watson Ladd wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> One of the items on the agenda that didn't really discussed was a
> number of drafts: draft-stenn-ntp-i-do-06,
> draft-stenn-ntp-extension-fields-09,
> draft-stenn-ntp-leap-smear-refid-00. All of them are masterworks of
> repurposing fields, adding structure to hitherto unstructured
> identifiers, and other tricks beloved of
>
> And none of them are necessary. Autokey should be dispenced with now
> that we have NTS. An NTS-KE exchange can easily be extended to include
> information about server features, and in event of changes a rejection
> of cookies can force a new NTS-KE exchange. This exchange can also
> include smeared time, which wouldn't be necessary if we represented
> timestamps in a format like MJD+seconds since midnight or somesuch
> (even UTC if properly understood).

I agree. Using NTS-KE is a great mean to provide information about the 
NTP server that cannot be transmitted via the basic NTP header, 
especially for static information. For information that change 
dynamically on the server side the use of extension fields seems more 
appropriate to me.

>
> I would like to see us adopt the attitude of the web community where
> new features are gated on TLS support to spur adoption.
>
> Sincerely,
> Watson
>
> _______________________________________________
> ntp mailing list
> ntp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email