Re: [Ntp] Call for Adoption: draft-mlichvar-ntp-alternative-port

[Miroslav Lichvar <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 12:43:48PM +0530, Dhruv Dhody wrote:
> Hi WG,
> 
> I support adoption. Some comments, nits, and queries to improve the I-D -

Again, thanks for the comments. A new version of the draft is here:

https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mlichvar-ntp-alternative-port-02.txt

> Please state it clearly in the abstract what text in RFC 5905 is being
> updated. This should also be spelled out clearly in the body.

I've described the new text as an addition to the section 9.1 of RFC
5905. It doesn't seem like a very good fit to me, but I couldn't find
a better place. Suggestions are welcome.

> ~ Please add a reference for NTS

There already was a reference for NTS. Did you mean it should be
moved, or was it something else?

> * Query
> ~ You state that autokey is not expected to be used, but what happens if it is?

If a server has Autokey enabled, it must not respond to Autokey
requests on the alternative port. That should follow from the
specified restrictions.

> ~ There are instances of SHOULD in the text (see paragraphs 4 and 5 in
> section 2), but I am not sure in which conditions that behavior is not
> expected, maybe you could be clear about them, or do they need to be
> MUST?

I'm not quite sure which SHOULDs you find unclear. Some of them are
meant to prevent existing implementations from breaking the new
specification and the rest is just meant to be a recommendation,
allowing different algorithms to be implemented for selecting and
switching between the ports.

-- 
Miroslav Lichvar