IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Hal Murray <halmurray@sonic.net> Tue, 06 September 2022 07:04 UTC

Return-Path: <halmurray@sonic.net>
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 187FBC1526EB for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Sep 2022 00:04:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fRsA6h-8_V3c for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Sep 2022 00:04:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from d.mail.sonic.net (d.mail.sonic.net [64.142.111.50]) (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 9DEFDC152568 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Sep 2022 00:04:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 107-137-68-211.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net (107-137-68-211.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [107.137.68.211]) (authenticated bits=0) by d.mail.sonic.net (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 28674dT7021763 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 6 Sep 2022 00:04:39 -0700
Received: from hgm (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by 107-137-68-211.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08DEE28C1D8; Tue, 6 Sep 2022 00:04:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.9.0 11/07/2018 with nmh-1.7.1
To: Ulrich Windl <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
cc: halmurray@sonic.net, "ntp@ietf.org" <ntp@ietf.org>
From: Hal Murray <halmurray@sonic.net>
In-Reply-To: Message from "Ulrich Windl" <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de> of "Tue, 06 Sep 2022 08:23:16 +0200." <6316E754020000A10004D6D4@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2022 00:04:38 -0700
Message-Id: <20220906070439.08DEE28C1D8@107-137-68-211.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net>
X-Sonic-CAuth: UmFuZG9tSVYKxum/YfaL3gGsTe+PCF5BHCYNTTOamjzgp4v0sQzMU/R0kHJkDxFXMVOX9Oi9J/fE1KTenX7Yx+Jw2O0hWCnRUTx73ve2a00=
X-Sonic-ID: C;mIZ8LLIt7RGtl4D9Pq3e0g== M;Rj6oLLIt7RGtl4D9Pq3e0g==
X-Sonic-Spam-Details: -1.5/5.0 by cerberusd
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/Flo75Z6JQ6LxIcvv8hnRpVxmodA>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] Antw: Re: Antw: Re: Antw: [EXT] NTPv5 Loop Detection without Stratum
X-BeenThere: ntp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Tue, 06 Sep 2022 07:04:43 -0000

Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-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?

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.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email