IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ntp] draft-ietf-ntp-alternative-port-02

Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com> Fri, 12 November 2021 14:17 UTC

Return-Path: <mlichvar@redhat.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 C25A93A0A60 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Nov 2021 06:17:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.102
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.102 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, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-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 (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.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 G4M2OiXcAPx3 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Nov 2021 06:17:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7882C3A0A55 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Nov 2021 06:17:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1636726648; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=OfdHHbSLUNEHpZxN3KXgE2nNnVQ4K6C1HMveVZaIHXk=; b=TWGY3vNnMkILu7D3mOfDCOKKQo2fEBaT6sam7Ml7ASYqqpazFnJkesWhqo5yyIZFfzknTb GDNEoDyGrheNKm6dVo6LhgCpTv8I2PkPks9pighjFUkcSXTCE7D2Yg4uy3aFD3JEYLBpEU ye6Lg5naNEE4Rpj7RyYZ20HRgJgSIOM=
Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-216-c07u5Nm2MpaqWKhcOsEXaw-1; Fri, 12 Nov 2021 09:17:24 -0500
X-MC-Unique: c07u5Nm2MpaqWKhcOsEXaw-1
Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FE0E192298B; Fri, 12 Nov 2021 14:17:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (holly.tpb.lab.eng.brq.redhat.com [10.43.134.11]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A629D18A50; Fri, 12 Nov 2021 14:17:15 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2021 15:17:20 +0100
From: Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com>
To: Doug Arnold <doug.arnold@meinberg-usa.com>
Cc: NTP WG <ntp@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <YY53cMl+SlxUu21H@localhost>
References: <AM7PR02MB5765BC64DE5E8C9F3E353DCACF939@AM7PR02MB5765.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AM7PR02MB5765BC64DE5E8C9F3E353DCACF939@AM7PR02MB5765.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.11
Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=mlichvar@redhat.com
X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0
X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/EMac2U7_j1DBeZDyFdC5qEVnxqg>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] draft-ietf-ntp-alternative-port-02
X-BeenThere: ntp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Time Protocol <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: Fri, 12 Nov 2021 14:17:32 -0000

On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 09:54:01PM +0000, Doug Arnold wrote:
> The word “generally” makes this statement vague.  How about:
> “Only modes 1 (active), 2 (passive), 3 (client), 4 (server), and 5(broadcast) SHOULD be used on this port.”

Ok, makes sense to me.
> 
> 
> “The client MAY send a limited number of requests to both ports …”
> 
> A limit without further elaboration is not a limit at all.

It's not unlimited :).

> How about recommending a specific maximum number of requests/unit time on each port?

Ok, say 8?

Thanks,

-- 
Miroslav Lichvar

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email