Re: [Ntp] Internal server error code in NTS-KE
Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net> Fri, 06 December 2019 02:01 UTC
Return-Path: <hmurray@megapathdsl.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 84C5612089D for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 18:01:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.036
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.036 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=1.951, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.982, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 xs7yjTfipqRq for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 18:01:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net [64.139.1.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AAD1120885 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 18:01:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shuksan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EE7B406061; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 18:01:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 with nmh-1.3
To: Watson Ladd <watson=40cloudflare.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
cc: NTP WG <ntp@ietf.org>, hmurray@megapathdsl.net
From: Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net>
In-Reply-To: Message from Watson Ladd <watson=40cloudflare.com@dmarc.ietf.org> of "Thu, 05 Dec 2019 11:58:32 PST." <CAN2QdAHQ=b0cHTR_3G9f3ji41YC6w8mOD3oWiZ+yhf1_2B4QEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 18:01:14 -0800
Message-Id: <20191206020114.8EE7B406061@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/H7wMuwGdBMhySKfSBU8lbCqaiR8>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] Internal server error code in NTS-KE
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: Fri, 06 Dec 2019 02:01:26 -0000
watson=40cloudflare.com@dmarc.ietf.org said: > I've just realized I'd like to send an error record in NTS-KE for a temporary > inability of the server to answer a request. There is no error code allocated > for this yet, so I'm going with 0xff, 0xff. On that note should we have an > experimental range for these codepoints? Can you easily setup a server that returns an error so that we can test client code? If so, something other than 0xff, 0xff would help test byte swapping. ------- What sort of retry time is reasonable? -- These are my opinions. I hate spam.
- [Ntp] Internal server error code in NTS-KE Watson Ladd
- Re: [Ntp] Internal server error code in NTS-KE Daniel Franke
- Re: [Ntp] Internal server error code in NTS-KE Hal Murray