Re: [Ntp] NTP Extensions (was Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp-22.txt> (Network Time Security for the Network Time Protocol) to Proposed Standard)

Except that we did discuss this, years ago, and there was a meeting with
me and Karen and I forget who else where we specifically said that
0xnn04 was already allocated for NTS.  I've long been saying we need a
way to make progress with EF proposals that does not cause collisions
between inplementations and avoids flag days.  Furthermore, I told Karen
that the NTP Project was using 0xNN0[5-9] for other proposals and that
with no progress on changing the way the NTP Extension Field IANA
registry was being managed, that 1) the NTP Project has a chalkboard
that we're using for this purpose, and 2) if anybody wants to work on an
EF they should just let me know.

You knew this too, and picked different numbers for your own reasons.

H

On 2/19/2020 10:19 AM, Franke, Daniel wrote:
> Suresh,
> 
> 
> Hal may not have been clear. The four extension fields we're discussing
> are the four defined by the NTS draft. Due to the registry's unfortunate
> lack of any P&E range, Hal and other implementers have picked four codes
> that they've been squatting on for their draft implementations. Desiring
> to avoid a flag day when the draft becomes final, they'd like IANA to
> turn these four codes into official allocations rather than having IANA
> arbitrarily assign something else. Speaking as an author of the draft I
> have no objection to this.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Suresh Krishnan <Suresh@kaloom.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 19, 2020 11:48
> *To:* Hal Murray
> *Cc:* Daniel Lublin; last-call@ietf.org; ntp@ietf.org; Karen O'Donoghue;
> draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp@ietf.org; ntp-chairs@ietf.org;
> IETF-Announce
> *Subject:* NTP Extensions (was Re: [Ntp] Last Call:
> <draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp-22.txt> (Network Time Security for the
> Network Time Protocol) to Proposed Standard)
>  
> Hi Hal,
>   (Changed subject to match your question below)
> 
>> On Feb 19, 2020, at 3:48 AM, Hal Murray <hmurray@megapathdsl.net
>> <mailto:hmurray@megapathdsl.net>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> daniel@lublin.se <mailto:daniel@lublin.se> said:
>>> I'm not entirely convinced of keeping a list of implementations in an
>>> RFC.
>>> But since the information is there, let's at least have it corrected and
>>> updated upon publishing.
>>
>> I thought it was a temporary section and would be deleted by the final
>> editing
>> pass when the TBDs were filled in.
>>
>> Traditionally, RFCs required running code, normally at least 2
>> independent
>> implementations that can talk to each other.  That section is useful
>> while
>> debugging and collects the data for the reviewers.
>>
>> -------
>>
>> Speaking of TBDs...  How do we contact the czar who assigns numbers
>> for NTP
>> extensions?  We've all been testing with 4 values.  It will be a pain
>> if they
>> change and I don't know of any reason not to make the values we are using
>> official.
> 
> If you are talking about NTP extension field types [0], they do require
> IETF review for allocation (i.e. no czar). Writing up a draft with your
> usage and sending it over to the ntp wg for consideration would be the
> best way forward.
> 
> [0] _https://www.iana.org/assignments/ntp-parameters/ntp-parameters.xhtml#ntp-parameters-3
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.iana.org_assignments_ntp-2Dparameters_ntp-2Dparameters.xhtml-23ntp-2Dparameters-2D3&d=DwMFAg&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=NlX0r6ynsvJy6t1-UbBqZbYxmdFYzvmLMmHofVndJ5k&m=4kCauNy5drgPVUEUsh2dWTBaaNAbwXU3tn1IZ2PbYI8&s=Ilafc9XVtUXj0DZFzrrma2AVM9yP4qsJLTGybPb_FaE&e=>_
> _
> _
> Regards
> Suresh
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ntp mailing list
> ntp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp
> 

-- 
Harlan Stenn <stenn@nwtime.org>
http://networktimefoundation.org - be a member!