IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ntp] draft-mlichvar-ntp-ntpv5-01

g16 <g16g16g16@gmail.com> Thu, 10 December 2020 16:23 UTC

Return-Path: <g16g16g16@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 45A143A1097 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 08:23:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.848
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.848 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 YSJLZr8f7gDA for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 08:23:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi1-x22d.google.com (mail-oi1-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22d]) (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 B053B3A1093 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 08:23:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi1-x22d.google.com with SMTP id x16so6331425oic.3 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 08:23:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=rWHwEKWzhsrYW1f5o6IpKgjUYAHrvNIKQ2diUaWTCdo=; b=cevfCM5QsxeABKTsQidh9Rixg0Z2ZCbBgnO2iO7X1rlx9PYMSeOeqmNPT8edlHAK8K Skj2vhQwDk32hYUhbTIVAsnKwb7DxUOcpL4n2DId208+LmqWybegwvyLF2Wlhgr+AlIa m/45x9s3RCLav0oqHGsr2wfPIYXlk69HSi9Yxe6F+2y948K1LcDxqSt2zfc8NE4Pi76V 0PtL8MDQC8mD48qQDhKYzKdFY5UT01tdYFAZTcSz5fSKKZOcojOuKKp7YHGqLxmnLOUX wTeXj9eMtBhX+m1A9f55/ErQbNQa/HMvCEEXUXdw3ZTPLA+I7B0jyjA/MJo3VbSB/RBF FgWQ==
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=rWHwEKWzhsrYW1f5o6IpKgjUYAHrvNIKQ2diUaWTCdo=; b=jQ4QXnMHU4sbyM8l6qxukpvld4Tf5sW3HumO0Zcm3tHPbuRLJDgDkfjDst9iURXwul kD4drJENyCrm7sx9zKcuyXWKfvTD0AGiGtPOVwdlp69SBmN7NsGigbUq3oYO+w3zaJ2H YEdPao9UcfOqlfp1O7MRGFknYLUaaWboVfWH+ZJ8byNLtReyAn3CcBr6km3Ba6u+2e/j 2qD1r87cL6VSQhP0E8X2ZI9546em3zGV3apt32H6iMvNoBH4urqhHuezQB4M/fQSWmMy esxZeQKWtgG9Y+KxKnXB5itotVrEPVOzers9Pn50HhM8U+6GykHsh6I6PJ87r2r00PL9 Mmlg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530bBPUXTtmaPqzvu0IcLRUeV6z69rXmg0zY2dAciz+ukrk5/5YU BBTSW32abAqNZON+dTrC2vfJ02wpXJADnZBQRnI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJypuABzhxubL/as5EX4GZUUU9ImbTh52R1/LfifHfaXg1tZE6LyTDd26Y9iZVo5fkwpt+BHkx7ZixSGHkNWo9s=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:f5d3:: with SMTP id t202mr5963290oih.25.1607617413711; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 08:23:33 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: g16 <g16g16g16@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 01:23:07 +0900
Message-ID: <CAFZ=0Sx3WeG5JY7RV+OS7OqFMLcVRCaW-w2OZG+d39_cJ5hbpg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com>, ntp@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e10a0e05b61e98a8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/DEd8uEErAcUo5P3LM27szCiOiwY>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] draft-mlichvar-ntp-ntpv5-01
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: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 16:23:36 -0000

Hi Miroslav

Thank you for your draft 01 work.

"8.  NTPv5 Negotiation in NTPv4" helped me understand.

May I ask you a question?

As written, Some NTPv4 implementations drop requests with unknown
extensions. As I read the draft, there is no mention of handling unknown
extensions. So,  can NTPv5 make it a MUST requirement to just ignore
unknown extensions instead of dropping packets? (Counted for symmetry of
data volume)

I'd say it's good for future extensibility.

When new extensions are defined in the future, a client indicates a
supported extension by sending the extension in a request, and the server
can only send extensions that the client supports.The  client knows if the
server understands the extension by seeing the same extension in the
response.

Thank you for reading.

Regards,

yuki

v2.15.0 | Report a Bug | By Email