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

[Harlan Stenn <[e-mail]>]

On 8/8/2022 8:04 AM, Salz, Rich wrote:
>>     Please tell me if your experimental playground is private or on the
>>     public internet.
> 
> People can put things on the Internet without asking permission.  That's one of its fundamental tenets. A large company may wish to experiment with an NTP extension (e.g., QUIC checksum complement?) and only has to be concerned that their experiment will not conflict with other people's experiments, or standard extensions. Perhaps you don’t know that this happens very often with HTTP and email, often via "X-" headers (as Ulrich said). It also happens with DNS (new RR types), and TLS (new crypto algorithms among others). It is common practice for protocol registries to have a "playground" area.

Sure, and that makes sense where it's appropriate.

I believe I already said this.

>>     I disagree.  The new numbers may still be assigned, but there's still
>>     the potential/likely mess with the old numbers.
> 
> In the larger IETF we have a great deal of experience in experiments concluding, being taken down, and official standard numbers being used. It doesn't happen overnight, but it doesn't take decades either.

Really?  What % of the traffic that you see is still NTPv3?

How long do you think it will be before updated NTPv4 servers are 
"generally" deployed?

What are the cleanup/pollution costs of doing what I have suggested, 
compared to what you are suggesting?

> _______________________________________________
> ntp mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp

-- 
Harlan Stenn <[e-mail]>
http://networktimefoundation.org - be a member!