[Ntp] Antw: Re: Antw: Re: Antw: Re: Antw: [EXT] NTPv5 Loop Detection without Stratum

[Ulrich Windl <[e-mail]>]

>>> Hal Murray <[e-mail]> schrieb am 06.09.2022 um 09:04 in
Nachricht
<[e-mail]>:

> [e-mail]‑regensburg.de said:
>> Yes, but a "packet format" does not mean a fixed‑length packet IMHO;
instead
>> if should contain a mechanism for a variable number of optional fields
that
>> can have a variable length and should be parseable even if it's only to
>> ignore them. I think that is what the e tension fields had in mind, but
>> somewhat short‑sighted. 
> 
> You are tangling 2 threads.  The chunk you are replying to is discussing 
> SNTP.
> 
> The S is for Simple.  I hope SNTP will work without extension fields.
> 
> 
>> Would it be advantageous if a server can recognize an SNTP request?
> 
> What would the server do differently if it figured out that a request came 
> from a SNTP client?

Maybe not sending extension fields, or maybe not filling the values of the
response that SNTP would ignore anyway.

> 
> It might make sense to have a separate packet format for SNTP 
> request/response.  That would make sense if the packet format could be a lot

> simpler than the NTP request/response format.  So far, it seems OK to ignore

> a few fields.
> 
> 
> ‑‑ 
> These are my opinions.  I hate spam.