[Ntp] Draft minimzation: did we get the modes wrong?
Watson Ladd <watson@cloudflare.com> Mon, 22 April 2019 20:10 UTC
Return-Path: <watson@cloudflare.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 220D3120380 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 13:10:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cloudflare.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 nqCyS0rt-Pfw for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 13:10:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72c.google.com (mail-qk1-x72c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72c]) (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 169A0120073 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 13:10:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72c.google.com with SMTP id g1so7202724qki.5 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 13:10:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudflare.com; s=google; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=VCr4Ecb3OjtJBKaspwopeqoFMIAO3UvTi+S//twOi/c=; b=ysPvEkkN/+1oO2vz8wkasixcu1zOEucCp5uu4tuib5zR4NO18Gprbpco+UFR1/I8bK 0l1Rm89Jq0OD8mG5CdAcF5sgXNqG7CXkpVDVV7kdwZvY9DIhJfaxIC5Hr4oOZq+iv7IP FDKkQONzwpSbaoOJOXSoOxUBj9i1m2adFOTQQ=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=VCr4Ecb3OjtJBKaspwopeqoFMIAO3UvTi+S//twOi/c=; b=NXAp4wJ7miedAaQnegaNx4fEZMxch+28pKC8sp85irloHIfQB0XEqHNdFJXhDleVgx JCgSx9U7zBN5IRWHzLZiaa/dodt/ZoHYrLKb5L1uSU8ndfUcp8pEQM2VkeQi8n/sssI2 QBkbtvzJQTmdhk5gNyDNmixxpvIwlbSv4FL3H3uNYBUlH/k1Mvnz+wK6MxUiuu9aZwSw pyW14TQxUchei5e5vHlkC2KNF1GJnWhOol/Vz998soOm8ELMx55IQZC8nSnAR/hfqL51 DUFle1GYMZ7kYhHHR1rbt0gckGMVSwqLHj264FcAwb5wtUm6/24nkfWr1e09WJr73jZC XTIw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUglmDuOIBR3mAk/gMPtwSf8/gHR5ABFmq6iz7+x3jrhzKtwTu+ Ojjj7rqMJp0F50iTFejWsTjpfCGmQ15H7e7rvuiO8o3sVF7yww==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwIGzCmFYibMlh/VbnwizOfx6OfsJ6I62HtvNw7UHp/BA9jbK8qS9NSUXHhhHXblK1YL28X+D1BSYKKAqOJH8Y=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:1113:: with SMTP id o19mr15551404qkk.129.1555963832903; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 13:10:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Watson Ladd <watson@cloudflare.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2019 13:10:22 -0700
Message-ID: <CAN2QdAEj4=gVXQrVXdU69x8QRzR3tFyLqadfFJZhDyPJNKL6WQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: ntp@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/8bCodve5g2zNEa7LoF0_bm7C__g>
Subject: [Ntp] Draft minimzation: did we get the modes wrong?
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: Mon, 22 Apr 2019 20:10:36 -0000
Dear list, Do clients send mode 3 packets or mode 4 packets? It seems this draft ( https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ntp-data-minimization-04) the NTP RFC disagree on this detail. Sincerely, Watson Ladd
- [Ntp] Draft minimzation: did we get the modes wro… Watson Ladd
- Re: [Ntp] Draft minimzation: did we get the modes… Daniel Franke
- Re: [Ntp] Draft minimzation: did we get the modes… Watson Ladd