Re: [Ntp] Quick review of WGLC for status change for draft-ietf-ntp-update-registries

[Miroslav Lichvar <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 04:27:47PM -0400, Danny Mayer wrote:
> On 8/15/22 6:57 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> > The IANA registry includes the values from RFC 5906, which nobody is
> > using. ntpd is using its own values. That's one of the issues that the
> > draft in the subject is supposed to address.
> > 
> Are you saying that the ones in the IANA registry are wrong or that RFC5906
> is wrong? Or both?

The IANA registry matches the values in RFC 5906, but they don't match
the values used by ntpd. There doesn't seem to be an implementation
using the IANA/RFC5906 values. The document discussed here is trying
to update the IANA table to include both sets of values in order to
prevent conflicts with newly specified extension fields, as already
happened with NTS.

My understanding is that RFC5906 was based on the ntpd implementation,
similarly to RFC5905, so other implementations could interoperate with
it. I think the discrepancy can be easily explained as an oversight.
There are macros used in the code and it's not very obvious how the
values are encoded in the type field.

Harlan says this was an intentional change.

-- 
Miroslav Lichvar